moved that the proceedings before the late Nottingham Election Committee be printed.

May 1 ask the hon. Member whether it is his intention to bring the petition under the consideration of the House?

Undoubtedly, I have given a notice to that effect. Will the noble Lord allow me to ask a question of him in return? Had the noble Lord any connexion with the proceedings before the committee which lately inquired into the allegations made against the return for Nottingham on the late occasion.

Sir, I am aware that 1 should be fully justified, and should, perhaps, better fulfil my duty as a Member of this House, if I declined to be catechised by the hon. Member and declined to answer a question that must be considered extraordinary and unusual. Sir, I am not only not ashamed, but I am fully prepared to defend the part which I have taken in any election, not only at Nottingham, but in any one in which 1 have been concerned. If the hon. Gentleman is inclined to go through a series of questions, and will concede to me the same privilege, and will promise me that he will give a fair and impartial answer to every question I propound to him, as far as I am concerned, 1 am perfectly prepared to go through the ordeal. Sir, I will state at once that the Conservative electors of Nottingham did call upon me for advice after the termination of the last election. Ever since I entered upon public life, they have done me the honour to place great reliance upon my opinion, and have frequently been guided by my advice. After the late election they solicited my advice, and having represented to me that the election had been obtained by unlawful means, I did advise them to present a petition against the hon Gentleman's return, and to prosecute it before the House— and further, it was upon my advice that the legal assistance was retained.

wished to ask whether her Majesty's Government were prepared to enforce an act of the Irish Parliament, the 35th of Henry 6th., by which the benefices of those prelates who resided away from their sees for a certain period without due cause were to be sequestrated?— the one-half was to be bestowed in church endowments, and the other given to the public service.

said, the hon. Member had placed the statute 35th of Henry 6th. in his hands, which was plain enough but without knowing how far the provisions of that statute might have since been modified by other acts of the Legislature, and without knowing under what circumstances the individuals alluded to might be absent, or how far their absence might have been authorized, or how far the statute might be applicable to their particular cases, it was impossible for him at that moment to do more than to state generally his deep regret that any prelate should be permanently absent from the exercise of his spiritual functions in Ireland.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that not long ago he put a question to the right hon Baronet on the subject of recent transactions in Scinde. Since that time Scinde had, by a series of inconceivably brilliant actions, displaying at once the bravery of our troops and the consummate skill of their commander, been subjected to the dominion of England, and its former rulers, the Ameers, were now prisoners at Bombay. He would now ask the right hon. Baronet was he prepared to lay before the House such information as would enable it to judge of the whole of the proceedings in Scinde, with reference to their policy and propriety? But if the right hon. Baronet was not now able to lay this information before the House when did he expect to be?

When the hon. and Learned Member had called his attention to this subject on a former occasion, he stated that he would undertake to lay on the Table the treaties entered into with the Ameers, and ratified by all the contracting parties. The hon. and Learned Member was aware, that those documents had been laid before the House; but he had also promised to lay before the House other documents which would enable it to form a judgment on the whole case connected with our occupation of Scinde. There were several points on which information had been required from the government of India.—On some of these the explanation sought for had not arrived. The information which he wished to lay on the Table, was not as complete as he could wish, but still it would be such as would enable the House to take a general view of the whole proceedings. The events which had recently occurred in Scinde, were, he would admit, of great importance; they were characterized by the valour of the men, and the skill, bravery and self-devotion of their gallant commander.

wished to know whether her Majesty's Government had deter mined to confirm the acts of the Governor-general with respect to the government of that part of the country heretofore under the dominion of the Ameers of Scinde? Was the general order of the Governor-general with respect to slavery to remain in force and how was it to be carried out? In the general order referred to, the Governor-general spoke of Acts of Parliament relating to the slave-trade, but no Acts of Parliament on this subject referred to India. Was the order of General Napier to be considered as rescinded by that of the Governor-general?

said, to the hon. Member's observations, he could answer only by conjecture. The order of General Napier applied only, as he understood it, to slavery in Scinde, and so that the social relations of European families might not be disturbed by the general act relating to it. The order would not prevent the holders of slaves from making them free if they pleased.

had understood the right hon. Baronet to state that not having full information on the subject of the hon. and learned Gentleman's inquiry, and the matter still being before her Majesty's GO- vernment, who had not yet been able to decide finally as to the general policy to be pursued by the Government of India, it was not advisable to lay such information as they were already in possession of upon the Table of the House. But he (Lord J. Russell) had observed that there had been certain papers made public through the newspapers. With respect to these he had not the same doubt about the policy of communicating them to the House. Those were the proclamation of Lord Ellenborough, in which it was stated that " content with the limits nature appears to have assigned its empire, the Government of India will devote all its efforts to the establishment and maintenance of a general peace," implying that the territories of the empire would not be extended beyond the Indus; and the account of the conquests of Sir C. Napier on the right bank of the Indus. Would the right hon. Gentleman object to lay these papers on the Table?

said, what he stated was, that on some points the information in the hands of her Majesty's Government respecting the subjects of the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman was imperfect. He had had every reason to hope that the next mail that went out would convey the general views of her Majesty's Government respecting the government of India. Up to this time there had been no opportunity for her Majesty's Government to communicate their general views respecting the policy to be pursued there from want of information. With respect to the question of the noble Lord, he thought there were objections to selecting for presentation to the House, first, those papers which had been published in the public journals. That course had been objected to, he believed, with respect to papers concerning some of the negotiations with America, and he thought it would be a very inconvenient one.

would on the earliest possible opportunity without reference to papers, bring the whole subjact of Scinde under the consideration of the House.

Before I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration her Majesty's most gracious message, it will be right to move a formal address, thanking her Majesty for the communication which she has been graciously pleased to make to the House. Of course to that formal reply to her Majesty's message I cannot anticipate the slightest objection. I am sure that the House feels obliged to her Majesty for her gracious communication, and will be glad to hear that a Princess, of that illustrious house of which her Majesty is the head, is about to ally herself in marriage with a Prince whose high character and amiable personal conduct have endeared him to every one who has had the honour to be acquainted with him. He is already connected by more than one tie with the Throne of this country, and, so far as circumstances can form any guarantee for the happiness of an union of this nature, there is every guarantee for the happiness of this; and I cannot forbear to express my wish that every happiness may attend the illustrious Princess and her Consort in the union they are about to contract. I move,—

"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, to return her Majesty the thanks of this House for her most gracious communication of the intended marriage between her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta Caroline, eldest daughter of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and his Royal Highness Frederick Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg Strelitz, and to assure her Majesty that this House will immediately proceed to the consideration of her Majesty's gracious message."

said, that no one could wish happiness to the illustrious Princess more than he did, but at the same time he must say, that the right hon. Baronet seemed to him to have omitted what was very important. He did not object to one word that was in the proposed address, he only wished to add two or three lines with reference to what it was the duty of the House on some occasions to attend to. He thought the right hon. Baronet could not expect that the House should go into committee before he had given notice of his motion to that effect. He presumed that the right hon. Baronet ought to stale on this occasion that on a future day he would name the precise sum which he should ask the House to vote by way of income for the Princess. On the 3rd of May, 1797, a message came down from the Crown announcing the intended marriage of the Princess Royal, when the House only voted the address and did not go into committee. He believed there were other precedents to the same effect; but, whether there were precedents or not, the House was in a condition to make precedents for themselves, and they ought not to go into committee immediately. He objected to a part of what had been stated by her Majesty. He wished to add to the words of the address two lines, which he thought it was the duty of the House to insert, and to which he presumed the right hon. Baronet could not have any objection. His amendment went to pledge the House to consider her Majesty's message with reference to a due consideration of the condition of the finances and the diminished receipt from the ordinary sources of revenue, and to the state of many of her Majesty's subjects, and the depression of trade, and especially to that suffering and destitution which had so long prevailed, which her Majesty's gracious speech from the throne delivered by the commissioners on the 2nd of February had so deeply deplored. He wished her Majesty to take these subjects into her consideration; he wished it because he believed that her Majesty would not wish that any step should be taken in this matter without due consideration of the circumstances which had been stated from the Throne in February last. He wished, therefore, to propose these words in addition to the ad dress, and he could not conceive that the right hon. Baronet could have any objection to them. He could not think that the right hon. Baronet would consider it proper to take any steps in this matter without taking into consideration the state of the finances which the right hon. Baronet himself had stated were in a very unsatisfactory condition. All he wished was to add to the address that to which he could not conceive there could be any objection. When that motion was disposed of, he should propose that the right hon. Baronet should state in the House, and before going into committee, what sum be meant to propose. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving to add the following words to the ddress—

"And, also, with due consideration to the state of the public finances, and to the diminished receipt from some of the ordinary sources of revenue;' to the condition of her Majesty's people, many of whom have long suffered, and are now suffering grievous privations, caused by heavy taxation, and by that depression of the manufacturing industry of the country which has so long prevailed; and which her Majesty, in her gracious speech from the Throne on the 2nd of February last so deeply lamented."

rose, to second the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. Within nine years they had added by their votes 42,000,000l. sterling to the permanent debt of the country. Within three years they had added by their votes 8,000,000l. sterling to the taxation of the country. He would like to know whither they were going to drive the country? If they fancied they would not have some day or other to answer for this they were mistaken.

I hope the two hon. Gentleman will allow the House to go into committee to enable me to state what is the proposal I have to make. I have acted not only in conformity with strict precedent, but in correspondence with those rules which are dictated by common sense and reason, without reference to precedent. The proposal I have now to make commits no one to approve of what I may state in committee. The proposal is only an assurance to her Majesty that we thank her for her most gracious communication, and consent to the consideration of the message—nothing more. Now surely, in committee of the whole House there will be a much better opportunity of my explaining to the House what is the nature of my proposal; and though I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's wish that I should state it now, yet I cannot help confidently hoping that the proposal I have to make will be one that will show that the Government have not disregarded the various considerations that, in the present state of the country, ought to be duly considered.

was in favour of the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and at a fitting period he should support it; but he would suggest that that was not the proper time for it. The best time would be in the next stage of the question. If his hon. Friend would not postpone his motion he h, c, vote with him though unwillingly.

could not help suggesting to the right hon. Baronet, that how- ever confident he might be of the general acquiescence of the House in the proposal he was about to make, it would be still more satisfactory to the House that they should have time calmly to consider the proposal after they heard what that proposal was. He recollected that when the late Government brought forward the question for making some provision for Prince Albert, the course then adopted by his noble Friend then the leader of the Government in that House, after stating what were the views of the Government, was, that the Chairman should report progress and take the vote upon a subsequent day. He threw this out as a suggestion, being in total ignorance of what the right hon. Baronet's proposal might be, and without giving upon it an opinion one way or the other, and whether they were to approve or disapprove of it. He confessed, that for one, he so far agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose as to think it better that the House should not commit itself to a vote in supply for a grant of money without a previous intimation of what that amount was to be. He, therefore, suggested the propriety of the right hon. Baronet stating that evening the views of the Government, and upon some subsequent evening calling upon the House for a vote.

Under the particular circumstances of the case, I certainly should be sorry if hon. Gentlemen acting, as I am sure they now are, upon a sense of public duty, after my stating the nature of the proposal the Government had to make to the House of Commons should feel it necessary to require delay for the consideration of that proposal; but at the same time, should there be on the part of hon. Members of this House a general opinion in favour of delay, I should be acting very unwisely with respect to a vote of money to the royal family to attempt to carry it by mere numbers. Much of the value of such a vote must depend upon the general concurrence of the House; and, therefore, after stating my proposal, if there should be a strong wish for delay, it will not be consistent with my duty to press it; but I shall then call upon the House on the earliest day to adopt the proposal.

understood the message to be for the purpose of the House making a suitable provision for a Member of the royal family, and he took the answer they were now to give to be an acquiescence in that. But he wished in giving his consent to that message to have before him the state of the finances of the country.

said, if he understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, he proposed that they should return an answer to the Crown, and in doing so profess then readiness to listen to the proposal. Even if he (Lord John Russell) took the same view as the hon. Member for Montrose, he should still think it more respectful to the Crown to receive and consider the proposal to be made. It would then be open to any hon. Gentleman to say, "We are willing to make a provision, if the circumstances of the country allow it," or on the other hand to say, " considering the circumstances of the country, we are incapable of making a provision." He trusted his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would withdraw his amendment.

Sir, I will not withdraw the amendment I have made. I wish her Majesty to know the truth as far as I am concerned.

I now proceed to state to the committee the precise character of that proposal which, on the part of her Majesty's Government, I am authorized to submit for the consideration of the committee. I do not propose to call upon the committee to adopt any proposition which will impose any immediate additional burthen upon the people. I do not propose to take any immediate vote by way of provision for her Royal Highness Princess Augusta Caroline of Cambridge. I find that the general rule adopted and sanctioned by the House of Commons, in respect to provisions made for princesses of the Royal Family, has been to assume that the parent of the princess, whether the reigning sovereign, or any member of the reigning family, would undertake, during the life-time of that parent, out of the provision made for him, either from the civil list granted to the Sovereign, or from the consolidated fund granted to any member of the Royal Family by Parliament, to make provision for their daughters. I propose to adhere strictly to that principle upon the present occasion. I shall not propose anything by way of absolute allowance; not anything by way of present annuity. But what I propose to the House is, that upon the death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge a certain portion of the annuity now received by his Royal Highness should he applied as a provision for the Royal Princess Augusta, his daughter. I will not refer to any particular provisions which have been made for the female branches of the royal family at former periods, because I am quite willing to admit that those cases form no necessary rule for guiding the subsequent discretion of the House of Commons. It is perfectly open to the House to consider the various circumstances which at the present time ought to guide and influence their decision upon this subject. I therefore only allude to the principle upon which allowances to the female branches of the royal family hare been regulated; that principle being, as I have already said, to assume that the parent during his life- time would make provision for his daughter, and that parliament would grant an allowance, its payment being contingent upon the death of such parent. Thus, in the year 1778, George the Third was enabled by Parliament to allow an annuity of 30,000l. as a provision for the five princesses, his daughters, to take effect after his Majesty's demise. So, again, in the more analogous case of the present Princess Sophia Matilda of Gloucester, for whom provision was made, to take effect on the death of her father, his Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. I shall content myself with mentioning these cases, which will at once show to the House that it is not necessary for me to enter into any details upon the subject. And, notwithstanding the preliminary objection which has been raised by the hon. Member for Montrose—that objection has not in the slightest degree abated my assurance that hon. Gentlemen on both sides cordially participate in the most earnest wish I expressed for the happiness of her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta of Cambridge and his Royal Highness the Duke of Mecklenburg Strelitz, and that there is but one unanimous feeling and cordial wish that every happiness may attend them in their union. The amount of the provision which I propose for her Royal Highness is one which I hope will satisfy the House that every consideration which ought to have been given has been duly attended to in making a provision of this nature. The provision I mean to propose for the sanction of the House is, that her Majesty in the event of the marriage taking place between her Royal Highness and the Duke of Mecklenburg Strelitz (it is necessary to add these words), should be empowered to settle upon her Royal Highness the sum of 3,000l. per annum, that sum to be paid upon the death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. I will not draw any contrast between the amount of the sum I now propose and the amount of the sums granted at former periods. It will be at once seen to be very considerably less, while the House will bear in mind that no immediate vote is asked for. Acting upon the principle that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge will make provision for his daughter during his life, I propose that when the annuity which his Royal Highness now receives shall cease, her Majesty shall have the power to confer upon her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta of Cambridge an annuity of 3,000l. This I submit for the sanction of the House. The right hon. Baronet moved the following resolution,

"That an annuity of three thousand pounds be settled upon her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta Caroline, eldest daughter of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, upon her marriage to his Royal Highness Frederick, Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg, Strelitz, the same to take effect from the decease of his said Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

—I trust, Sir, the purpose of my amendment will not be misunderstood. I do not intend in any manner to oppose the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, but to suggest an alteration in the proposal he has made that will, I think, save money to the country, and which, I am also certain (I speak from unquestionable authority), will be most acceptable to the parents of both the parties interested. The proposal of my right hon. Friend is to make a grant of 3,000l. a-year to Princess Augusta of Cambridge, to commence on the decease of her father, his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. My amendment is, to reduce the grant from 3,000l. to 2,000l. a-year, to be made payable from the day of her marriage. I have already stated, and I now repeat it, that such a sum, although less in amount, will prove more acceptable to the illustrious couple, and this, I think, can be easily imagined; parties when they settle in life like to ascertain their income so as to regulate their expenditure—an income derivable on a contingency is never so desirable as one settled on the marriage; a young couple living on an expectancy either retrench too much or the reverse, and under any circumstances any addition of income, arising from the decease of a beloved parent, can never be the source of much enjoyment in its future anticipation. As far, therefore, as the reversionary grant refers to the parties most interested, 1 think it rather objectionable. Now, in reference to the advantage to the public: The annuity of 2,000l. a-year at present is more advantageous than 3,000l. a-year of the life of the Duke of Cambridge, which will appear as follows. Taking the Princess's age at twenty-two, her chance of life may be estimated by the new tables of annuities at thirty-three years. The chance of life of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, taking him nearly at seventy-two years of age, is about nine years, deduct nine from thirty-three and there remains twenty-four, which multiplied by three, give 72,000l., now multiplying thirty-three by two gives only 66,000l., so that my amendment gives the country a payment of 66,000l. in lieu of 72,000l. Now, Sir, it may be said that a precedent will hereby be established of giving to the younger branches of the Royal Family an annuity during the life of their parent, but the only parties to whom this can by any possibility apply, at present, are the other two children of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and at this moment there is no chance of their entering into the married state during the life of their father. If, therefore, the amendment that I propose is more acceptable to the parties interested, and to the respective parents of each—if it appears more beneficial to the interests of the country by making a less charge, and saving 6,000l., according to the tables on annuities—if no particular precedent is created, I confess I am at a loss to perceive what objection can be made on any other ground. I am not asking for a large grant, I ask for one of less value, but more acceptable from its immediate operation to the parties concerned. A precedent is to be found when the Princess Mary, daughter of the Duke of York, obtained a grant from Parliament of 40,000l. on her marriage with the Prince of Orange. Sir, I am well aware there is a feeling in the country, and in this House, that as his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was, for many years, Viceroy in Hanover, he had an opportunity of saving very large sums of money, and, therefore, that he ought to give a good portion to his daughter. Sir, I can state from positive and direct authority, that these statements are exaggerated, that the greater part of the Duke's annuity from Parliament was expended in this country during his residence abroad, and that if the grant is not made in the manner that the amendment which I propose suggests, his Royal Highness will be obliged to make some retrenchment in his domestic expenditure to meet the additional expense of the marriage of his daughter. Now, Sir, before I sit down, I will make only one observation as regards the grant of annuities to the Royal Family, which, I am fully aware, has been considered by some persons as invidious, and an unnecessary waste of the public money. Sir, if you have a Royal Family you must keep up their dignity, and those persons who cavil at the annuities granted seem to forget the large revenues given up formerly by the Crown which would have enabled the Sovereign, had they been continued, to grant annuities to the younger branches of the Royal Family, without any additional burthen to the State, or without any application to Parliament— that power being, by the surrender of the revenues, taken from the Crown, it surely behoves Parliament to provide, I do not mean in an extravagant or inconsiderate, but in a considerate and prudent manner, for the descendants of the Sovereign to the second generation at least, to grant that income to supply their wants, and keep up the dignity of the junior branches of the illustrious house of Brunswick, who must in this, as well as in all future cases, rely on, and depend on, the kindand loyal' sentiments of the House of Commons. As this amendment is, therefore, more agreeable to the young persons most interested, as it is beneficial to the interests of the public, as it does not involve, in any manner, a precedent beyond what has already been admitted to apply to the grandchildren of the Crown, I confess I see no reason, and, in fact, I feel at a loss to discover any argument, that can be adduced why it should not be adopted. I will only add, that I have authority to state, that such an arrangement would be most satisfactory to the illustrious parents of both the parties more immediately interested in the business.

differed entirely from the calculation of the hon. Gentleman. It was true that an annuity of 2,000l. was nominally less than one of 3,000l.; but it was by no means a matter of certainty that an annuity of 2,000l., commencing from the marriage of her Royal Highness, wss in value less than an annuity of 3,000l., contingent on the death of the illustrious father of her Royal Highness. If, then, it should prove that by converting an immediate annuity of 2,000l. into capital it should really represent more than a contingent annuity of 3,000l. would do, the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would in effect be to increase the grant proposed by her Majesty's Go- vernment; and this the committee mutt be aware it was not competent for the hon. Gentleman to do.

said, that it was not competent for the hon. Gentleman to embody the whole of his proposition in one amendment. He must in the first instance move to substitute the word " two," for the word " three;" and then, if that were carried, he must in a subsequent resolution move that the annuity do commence from the day of the marriage of the Princess, instead of from the time of the decease of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.

finding the committee, generally speaking, adverse to his proposition, would withdraw it. He assured the House he had only acted under a conscientious feeling that he was proposing what would have promoted the comfort and happiness of their Royal Highnesses, and that he was merely doing that which he could wish any one would do towards him under similar circumstances.

expressed a wish that the right hon. Baronet, instead of referring to what has been the practice in similar cases with respect to our own native princes and princesses, had referred to what had been the practice in respect to the numerous alliances which had been formed between German princes and princesses with members of the Royal Family of this country. He would have found it difficult to discover that any former royal princess, in forming such an alliance, had ever received one single farthing of fortune from the country. And he should like to know, in the present state of the country, what pretence there was to change that custom, and to make that change so much in favour of these German princes and princesses. He considered that his royal highness had had an ample allowance of the public money to enable him to provide for his own children. He was in the receipt of 27,000l. a-year; he was colonel of two regiments, each of which had two battalions, and he had been recently created head ranger of two of the Royal parks. [An hon. Member: There are no emoluments.] That was perfectly marvellous; and he was delighted to hear that his Royal highness had undertaken the duty of those two departments without any pay. His Royal Highness had had peculiar opportunities for realising money sufficient to make provision for his children, because during many years he was viceroy of the kingdom of Hanover. No doubt the emoluments of that office were quite sufficient to meet all his expenditure; and common report did say, that his Royal Highness had, in consequence of these numerous appointments and emoluments, been enabled to amass a large private fortune. Upon what ground, then, was the Government justified in asking for public money to pension the daughter of a person in his Royal Highness's exalted station, when it was laid down in their poor-law that the wretched being who received the pittance of 7s., 8ss., or 10s. a week wages, was bound to provide for all his family, however numerous it might be; and which law, not only made every father, but every grandfather, labour for their children and grandchildren. Why not apply the same just principle to the case now before the House? But there was one very remarkable circumstance connected with the present parties. The reigning Duke of Mecklenburg Strelitz, the father of the intended husband of the Princess Augusta of Cambridge, and who he presumed was a relative of her royal highness—had been receiving 2,000l. a-year from this country ever since 1798, being being now 45 years. The principal, interest, and compound interest of the money thus received by him amounted to upwards of 300,000l. This large sum was extracted from the pockets of the hard-working people of this country. Was it not enough that the father should be pensioned on the country, without making the son also a pensioner? The amount of money at this moment allowed by the country to German princes and princesses, allied to our royal family, was not less than 200.000l. a-year. Was not this enough in all conscience, without making any addition? But upon what pretence was it proposed to be made? He presumed it was on account of the relationship existing between the Princess Augusta of Cambridge and her Majesty. If that were the ground, then, upon the same principle the people ought to provide for all the relations of her Majesty standing in the same degree with her royal highness. In that case there would be a pretty long line to provide for. The present distressed state of the country rendered the propo sition now before the House wholly unjustifiable; and he should feel it his duty to give every opposition to the grant. It was no argument to say that the money would not be asked for at the present moment. If not, then that was a reason why the proposition should not now be brought forward. But he objected to the vote on principle. It was wrong for the House to provide, at the expense of the industry of the country, for any individual whatsoever, and especially for so distant a relation of the Sovereign as was her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta of Cambridge [question question]. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not offer this opposition from any disrespect to the Duke of Cambridge. He believed that his royal highness had been in the management of his money matters exceedingly prudent, and had set a noble example. He objected to it upon public grounds. It was wrong in principle, and, therefore, he opposed it.

Sir, I cannot give a silent vote on this interesting subject. I hope the committee will permit me to remind it, that the amiable princess for whom we are now called upon, by royal message, to make suitable provision, is the grand-daughter of the illustrious monarch who surrendered to Parliament the hereditary revenues of the Crown, in consideration of a civil list of limited amount, settled on the Crown for the maintenance of the royal household, and other charges for public services. This immense patrimony, the ordinary revenue of the Crown, was capable of vast improvement and augmentation. The public have greatly benefitted by this arrangement; and I hope the House will feel, that the compact thus made, between the king and his Parliament, imposes upon this House, a moral and political obligation, to make the grant now required, and thus to provide for the grand-daughter of that good and illustrious monarch, who divested himself, for the public good, of the means of doing this, by rendering himself dependent upon his Parliament, for a fixed sum calculated only for the actual support and maintenance of the royal household, and the other charges on the civil list.

Member for Coventry has represented the illustrious Duke as being colonel of two regiments, each of two battalions, and deriving great emoluments from both. His royal highness is only honorary colonel of the two battalions of the 60th, and derives no emolument whatever from being colonel of that corps. Sir, I have had the honour of the notice of the illustrious Duke for many years. Knowing the virtues private and public of that illustrious prince; knowing and admiring the manner in which, through life, his Royal Highness has discharged all the duties appropriate to his exalted rank and station; knowing that his Royal Highness is unable to make that provision for his royal daughter, which I think this House is morally and politically bound to do, under the circumstances which I have stated — I give my cordial support, and my willing vote in favour of the very reasonable and very moderate arrangement proposed by the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, and trust the committee will respond, unanimously and unhesitatingly, to that proposition.

did not think that the House was prepared to enter into any details, and after the statement of the right hon. Baronet, it would be fit for the chairman to report progress and ask leave to sit again. There could be no objection to fix an early day for the revival of the subject.

rose for the purpose of moving that a new writ be issued for the election of two Members for the borough of Sudbury. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the recent proceedings in the House of Lords with regard to this unfortunate and persecuted town, and contended that, as the bill for disfranchising Sudbury had been thrown out in the House of Lords, it would be most unfair to subject the acquitted party to a second indictment. He moved that the writ do issue.

said, that, in proposing the motion of which he had given notice, he was actuated by a wish to maintain the character of that House, and by a desire that the corruption which had notoriously prevailed at elections in the borough of Sudbury might be properly and fully investigated. When he looked at the evidence which had been adduced before a select committee of this House as to the prevalence of that corruption,—when he considered that evidence in connexion with the former history of Sudbury, he thought it was incumbent upon that House, after having already passed an act for the disfranchisement of the borough, to see—before they consented to the issue of a new writ—whether some measures might not be adopted for preventing similar corrupt practices in future. He would not attempt to impugn the course which had been pursued in another place with respect to the bill for the disfranchisement of Sudbury; but he believed that not one of the witnesses examined before the select committee of that House had been examined by the other House. He hoped the House would indulge him if, for a few moments, he referred them to the history of the borough of Sudbury. Before the passing of the Reform Act its constituency consisted of about 900 persons, a very considerable number of whom were non-resident. Sudbury was fifty-six miles from London, but for election purposes the distance was called sixty miles; and every elector resident in the metropolis received Is. a mile for his travelling expenses in going down, and the same sum for returning, besides his personal expenses— eating and drinking—while in the borough. After the passing of the Reform Bill, the non-resident freemen were cut off; but corrupt practices still continued. When an election took place in 1832, immediately after the passing of the Reform Act, and when, if any spirit of patriotism existed in the minds of the people of that borough, it would have been called forth, he believed the greatest possible corruption prevailed—corruption as extensive as ever took place before, or perhaps had been practised since. Hon. Gentlemen were aware, that when an individual intended to offer himself as a candidate for any borough, his usual course was to visit that place a short time before the election; to state his principles, and by personal intercourse to endeavour to ingratiate himself with the constituency. But if a candidate for the borough of Sudbury had done so, he would have been laughed at by the electors. It was the custom for the candidates for Sudbury to go down on the night preceding the day of election; till that time not a promise was given; the constituency were all on the alert; and they looked to the opposition man as the great card with which they were to play. One of the witnesses examined before the House of Lords stated, that he considered canvassing a mere form,—that it had been so of late years; that no promise could be relied upon; and that the electors were actuated in giving their votes by the price they could obtain for them. In 1832 Mr. Wrangham, a learned gentleman of considerable talent, was a candidate for the borough, and had apparently the fullest prospect of success. But what was the case on the day of election? Why, he found that even those persons who had promised their votes to him came up and polled for his opponents, having been bribed during the preceding night. The gentleman on retiring from the contest said—

"I have not deserted my post while any hope remained; I have protracted the struggle long enough to see men, who no longer ago than last night solemnly renewed to me their often repeated promises of support, brought up to the hustings this morning in a loathsome state of intoxication, in that state turned into these booths, and then, without even the decency of removing the blue ribbons, which as a badge of their pledge to me still fluttered in their button holes, polled as plumpers for my opponent. Gentlemen, it is not for me to say what potent influence has been at work during the night to purchase this shameless and wholesale apostacy—you will draw your own inference; but this I will say, that I turn from such degrading practices, and from the willing agents in the work of pollution, with loathing the most unmeasured and ineffable."

From 1826 to 1841, a period of fifteen years, twelve elections had taken place in the borough of Sudbury; and there had been scarcely an instance of two persons of the same political opinions having been returned at consecutive elections. It was stated in evidence before the handloom weavers committee, that the electors were influenced in giving their votes by the mere consideration of how they could obtain the largest amount of money. In consequence of the proceedings which took place at the last election, a committee of that House recommended the disfranchisement of the borough, and a petition was presented by the Hon. Member for Fins-bury, signed by 150 electors, complaining of the practices pursued at that election; and, he believed, praying that the borough might be disfranchised. But it might be asked what course they ought to adopt? Should they suspend the writ indefinitely? To such a course he would decidedly object; he considered it most unconstitutional. What course, then, ought they to adopt? When the noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) introduced, last Session, a bill for the prevention of bribery, the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) expressed his concurrence with the noble Lord as to the difficulties which existed with regard to the disfranchisement of boroughs. The right hon. Baronet said—

" 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 the Session. In the meantime, 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?"

He did not blame the House of Lords for the course they had taken with respect to the bill for the disfranchisement of Sudbury; for, if they had no means of forcing evidence before them, they were justified in throwing out the bill. What course, then, was it advisable that that House should adopt? The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had proposed the appointment of a joint committee of Members of both Houses to inquire into general allegations of bribery; but, on subsequent discussion, the clauses proposed by the right hon. Gentleman with that object were withdrawn. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon), in the debate to which he had alluded on the introduction of the bill of the noble Lord opposite, threw out a suggestion which he (Mr. Tufnell) had adopted. The noble Lord said—

" 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."

This course was, he conceived, much less liable to objection than the other. The great difficulty with regard to it was, as to the weight which would be given to evidence so taken by the House of Lords, — whether, in the event of such evidence inducing this House to bring forward a disfranchisement bill, the Lords should be content to take the evidence as it then stood, or would demand fresh evidence. He hoped the Lords would be content to receive the evidence which might be taken by such a commission— and that, if it were considered satisfactory by this House, the Lords would adopt it. He proposed, by the bill which he now begged leave to introduce, that two commissioners of inquiry should be appointed by the Crown, and that they should have full power to examine into the corruption which had been practised in the borough of Sudbury, conducting their inquiry either in Sudbury, or within a certain distance from that place. He had modelled his bill upon that introduced last Session for the appointment of commissioners of inquiry into the Exchequer-bill frauds. He proposed that the commissioners should be armed with every necessary power; that they should have power to send for persons and papers, to examine witnesses upon oath, to impose penalties for non-attendance, and for refusal to give evidence, and to grant certificates of indemnity to persons who made full disclosures. He might be allowed to refer, for a moment, to the course which had been pursued in the House of Lords, as to warning the witnesses. It seemed that the noble Lord on the Woolsack informed every witness that he was not bound to answer any question which had a tendency to criminate himself; but that he was at liberty to do so or not, as he thought proper; and that, if he made a full disclosure of what he knew, though it might tend to criminate himself,—yet, if he did so to the satisfaction of their Lordships and of the Lord Chancellor, he should receive a certificate of indemnity from all consequences. Now, the House must remember what was the description of the witnesses to whom this caution was given; —they were corrupt witnesses. They were told,—" You are not bound to answer any question, if it has a tendency to criminate you, but you are at liberty to do so if you please; and if you do so you must tell the whole truth, or you will not be entitled to a certificate of indemnity." He was not surprised that the witnesses had construed this warning into a license to say what they pleased. The warning was certain, but the indemnity was uncertain; and he could not wonder that the witnesses had construed the advice into a recommendation to say what they pleased, so long as they did not criminate themselves. The corruption which had for so long a period existed with regard to elections for the borough of Sudbury had produced the most disastrous effects on the morals of the inhabitants. This fact was stated by the handloom weavers commissioners in their report. The chairman of the board of guardians stated, before the commissioners, that the injurious effects upon the morals of the people produced by contested elections had been far more extensive than the improvement effected by the efforts of;all the ministers of religion. He was sure that, had the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley) been in his place, he would have supported him in his endeavour to remove the source of so much corruption and debasement. But not merely were the lower classes affected by this system, but even the morals of the higher classes were debased by it. It could hardly be expected that the starving electors should resist temptation; but the guilt of the rich man who went down to the borough in order to corrupt the poor was of a much heavier description. Upon this point he must refer the House to the evidence of Mr. Gooday, taken before the House of Lords, which, among others, contained the following questions and answers:

"Had you any other reason for not giving him 60l. to buy his vote, except that you had not 60l. to give him?—Yes; I would not bribe the man.

"Because you thought it a crime to bribe him?—Yes.

" Do you think it is any crime in a man to be bribed?—Yes.

" Do you think it would have been a crime in the man to be bribed by Mr. Massey?— Yes.

" You had a great objection to bribing him yourself, because you thought it was criminal; hut you had no objection to take him to Mr, Massey, that Mr. Massey might commit the crime?—Such was the case.

"That is the nature of your conscience, is it?—No.

" You have no conscience, perhaps?—I may have a conscience, and not exactly in the position in which it is placed by the question.

" Then your conscience is of this kind, that it prevents you from inducing a man to commit a crime by buying his vote yourself, but it does not prevent you from taking a man to another, that that man may commit a crime, and buy his vote?—My conscience succumbed to the circumstances."

who gave this evidence, belonged to a highly respectable class, and what he said showed the general laxity of morals in Sudbury among high and low. If any other way could be suggested by which a full inquiry would take place, he was not wedded to his own views, nor would he set himself in opposition to those of other hon. Members. One reason which had induced him to take up the subject was, that he had seen in 1834, and during the last Session, how great was the difficulty of introducing a general measure; they might all see circumstances of great corruption in a borough, and yet they might not be able to get a bill applying a remedy through both Houses. Two ways had been proposed to apply a remedy; one was by a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament, and the other was by a commission to be appointed by the Crown. It was difficult to say which was best; and if the House could ever be allowed to make an experiment in corpore vili, he thought Sudbury was a very fit subject, and the result of that experiment would guide them in future legislation; for, even if it failed, it would show that they must adopt some other measures. In bringing forward this motion he was not acting upon party political views; he had refused to attend to the solicitation of one party or the other. His sole object was to uphold the character of the House, and to amend a gross defect in the representative system. This was all he sought, and he would conclude by moving as an amendment,

" That leave be given to bring in a bill for an effectual inquiry into bribery and corrupt practices alleged to exist in the borough of Sudbury."

said, that if he had to choose between the two propositions before the House, he should not hesitate to adopt that of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The case before them was indeed a most extraordinary one. An election committee of that House had unanimously voted that gross bribery had taken place in the borough of Sudbury, and recommended to the House, that a bill should be brought in to disfranchise it. A bill was accordingly brought in; no petition was presented by any party to be heard by counsel against it; no person appeared to oppose it, and it passed that House with apparent unanimity. The bill was sent to the House of Lords, and there he found the case had entirely miscarried. Their first duty then appeared to be to inquire into the reason for this different decision of the two Houses. They had asked the House of Lords for the evidence taken at their Bar He had looked it through, and it was the most extraordinary document that had ever fallen into his hands. He was totally at a loss to account for the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, for the persons who were entrusted with its conduct, and with the evidence which was brought forward in its support. In the first place, he saw the two counsel who, as counsel for the petitioners against the return, had established the case against the borough, acting as counsel against the bill, and defending the borough. If he looked a little further he found, that the two gentlemen who had been retained to defend the sitting Members in the Commons were the counsel who were employed against the borough in the Lords. This did seem the oddest choice that could be made. He had made some inquiry, and he found that the bill was not entrusted to the petitioners against the return, but that an agent was employed for that purpose by the Treasury. After seeing that the counsel employed had completely crossed hands, he looked at the witnesses which bad been examined, and he found that there was but one witness called before the Lords who had been examined before the election committee. Stress had been laid upon the caution given to the witnesses that they need not criminate themselves. In courts of justice it frequently happened, that appeals were made by witnesses against giving evidence which might criminate themselves, it was common for witnesses so to excuse themselves from giving evidence, but it was no ground why, having given evidence, a witness should perjure himself by saying, that he knew nothing of a transaction of which he knew all. He could not see, on reading the evidence, therefore, how, if the Indemnity Act had compelled the witnesses to give evidence, the House of Lords would have got a word more out of the witnesses than they did. He thought, that it would be well to institute an inquiry into these circumstances before they addressed the House for a commission, a step which ought to be well considered before it was taken. He might be thought to have too great a constitutional jealousy of the Crown; but he did not like, in a case where a gross breach of the privileges of that House and of Parliament was involved in the inquiry, that the Crown should select the commissioners. What he would suggest was, that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the reason for the difference between the witnesses produced before the Lords and Commons, and why material witnesses examined before the Commons, were not examined before the Lords. If any one believed that there had been collusion, and that the parties on both sides had agreed not to produce the necessary evidence, that circumstance called for serious inquiry. He did not think that there was the slightest ground for reflecting on the House of Lords; for, if they looked at the evidence, it would he found so defective that it was not surprising they should think it a waste of the public money to continue the inquiry, unless more could be substantiated. If the committee were granted, he would propose to call before them, firstly, the agents, and ask them why they had not summoned the witnesses; and, secondly, he would call the counsel, whom he would ask why they declined to continue the examination. They were gentlemen of the highest character, in favour of whom everything ought to be inferred and presumed; but, at the same time, the case was so extraordinary, that the House would not do its duty if it did not adopt means for examining into the question, and seeing whether the case had been honestly and properly brought forward; and if it had not been, this would be a sufficient reason for sending a fresh bill to the House of Lords. When he found a witness stating that he had received two guineas, that he then went and voted, upon which he received a ticket and that on a person looking at the ticket through a window four guineas more were received—when he found that this was not a single case, but that six or seven other voters gave the same evidence, that 150 tickets had been distributed, and that at the time this took place, none but voters being allowed to go up that such was the crush that the staircase was literally broken by those crowding to go up, he could not conceive how a stronger presumption of general bribery could be made out. As there was an amendment already before the House, he could not move his; but should the hon. Gentleman give him the opportunity, he would move that a select committee be appointed to compare the evidence given before the House of Lords, on the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill, and the evidence taken before the committee on the Sudbury election petition, and to report the circumstances why material witnesses, examined before such committee, we were not examined at the Bar of the House of Lords.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman proposed his amendment as a preliminary inquiry to further proceedings, he would have no objection to withdraw his own amendment.

amendment was read from the Chair.

felt his inequality, when he was opposed to the right hon. Gentleman; but he must ask whether Sudbury was to be made the scapegoat or other boroughs, which might on inquiry, be found to be equally delinquent, though they had been more prudent and circumspect in their proceedings? A respectable witness (Mr. Warner) a Liberal, gave this evidence:—

" Do you believe that there are a considerable number of respectable tradesmen in Sudbury who are quite incapable of taking bribes for their votes?—I think there are. " Should you say that they form the majority of the respectable tradesmen of Sudbury? —Yes; I should say the majority of them would not do it."

Nor was the inquiry closed without every opportunity being given to the parties to produce evidence. This was the way it ended:—Counsel were called in, and informed, that the House wished to know from the learned counsel for the bill, " whether, exercising their best judgment, and looking to all the sources of information of which they were masters upon this question, they are of opinion that there it a reasonable probability of making out a case of general corruption of the borough;" that, if there was, in their opinion, any reasonable probability of such a case being made out, of course the inquiry must be pursued, but that, if there was no such probability, the House considered that it would be an idle waste of lime and of public money to continue the inquiry. The counsel stated, that, considering the result of the examinations of the witnesses called on the former day, as well as of those who had been called to-day, he did not think it probable that he should succeed in making out a case of general corruption against the borough. The counsel were informed, that if they wished to have time to consider this question, reasonable time should be allowed for that purpose. The counsel stated that in the interval of their withdrawment from the bar, he had conferred upon the subject with his learned colleagues, and that he did not think it necessary to ask for time for that purpose; and that it appeared to him to be his duty to desist from this inquiry, as he did not think it could proceed with advantage to the public. The counsel were further informed that they must decide for themselves whether they would proceed further; that their Lordships left it entirely to them, and proposed that they should take a day to determine. The counsel replied that they had already made up their minds, and should offer no further evidence, and that proceeding further with the bill would, in their opinion, be a waste of time and money. Considering, also, the length of time during which this borough had been unrepresented, he would ask the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir R. Peel) whether he would not give way to the pressure of circumstances, and whether he would still persevere in opposing the writ?

thought this was a question of considerable difficulty and of very great importance. The House had almost unanimously resolved, or at least there was an immense preponderance of opinion that the borough of Sudbury was so corrupt as not to be entitled to have continued to it the privilege of sending Members to Parliament. In coming to that opinion, the House took into its consideration the evidence on which an election committee came unanimously to the resolution of calling the attention of the House to it. He should, therefore, think it painful for any one, if any alternative could be found, to vote at once that this borough of Sudbury was entitled to this privilege. He thought, after the vote which had been almost unanimously come to, that the borough of Sudbury was not so entitled, they should adopt some proceeding before they issued the writ. At the same time the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tufnell) was very novel; it was that a commission should be appointed by the Crown to make further inquiry. He proposed to pass a bill for the purpose, but in a bill so passed by the Commons, the House of Lords must concur. If they sent such a bill to the House of Lords without any intervening inquiry, he was not prepared to predict what view their Lordships might take; and if such a bill were rejected, the House of Commons would have no alternative but to issue the writ. In his opinion the pro- ceedings of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords suggested grave matter for consideration. The House of Commons were convinced that the borough of Sudbury ought to be disfranchised, but in the House of Lords there had been a complete failure of evidence. This was a strong proof that the jurisdiction in cases of this kind was defective, and that if the strict rules of jurisprudence were observed in these cases there would always be these failures. It occurred to him that it might be possible to predict cases in which, after the heat of the contest had subsided, the two parties might consider whether or not it was wise to proceed further; whether or not both parties would not be sufferers; whether or not the town of which they were electors would not lose a valuable privilege; whether or not it would not suffer in general estimation by public exposure, and whether or not under such circumstances it would not be to their common advantage to suppress the evidence. He thought they should adopt some course to prevent such a state of things. He reserved to himself the power of considering whether the bill of the hon. Gentleman was a proper one; but he was sure that they would lay better grounds for its passing if, by a preliminary inquiry, the House of Commons should have ascertained the cause of the former failure. The House ought to make this inquiry, for the Treasury had given every facility for the prosecution of the bill. It had allowed the parties to select their own agents, and great expense had been incurred. When he looked at the personal character of the witnesses, he wished to know why the parties who had been examined before the House of Commons had not been summoned before the Lords. If this evidence had not been summoned in consequence of the two parties in Sudbury agreeing, the facts were most important, and if the evidence should show an agreement between the parties to suppress testimony, it would not only warrant the House in passing a particular bill relative to the borough of Sudbury, but also to give a more extended general power. If, again, the answers of the agents should be that the reason they could not procure more evidence was, that through this agreement between the parties they were unable to produce it, that again would be an important fact to be known, not only in this case, but as the foundation for future proceedings. He could not help thinking that by means of a committee of the House of Commons, composed of high authorities in that House, important light would be thrown on this transaction. He was sure, looking to the future, that if the special circumstances of this case should call for proceedings, they would have a better chance of success than if, without any inquiry, they should send up a bill to the other House. He hoped, therefore, that the course recommended by the high authority of his right hon. Friend would be adopted unanimously. After the vote which he had formerly given, and in which as he thought, he was fully justified that the borough of Sudbury had so conducted itself that it ought to be disfranchised, he would be unwilling to vote for issuing the writ till this inquiry had taken place, and, of course, for such purpose, he would assent to the necessary suspension of the writ.

came down to the House prepared to support the amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Tufnell), thinking that it was reasonable. The basis of the measure of his hon. Friend, and of the amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was, he believed, the same, namely, that after the evidence had induced the House to take the strong step of passing a bill to disfranchise the borough, it was not fit to issue a writ without inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomery, an authority which always deserved the respect of that House, and the right hon. Baronet thought that another proposal would be a better mode of ascertaining the truth, and of obtaining the assent of the House of Lords to the passing of a further bill. His hon. Friend would therefore have been acting unwisely if he had persisted in his opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, and had not agreed to his amendment. From former experience, his own impression was, that the House of Commons would often have sufficient evidence to warrant them in passing such bills, but that in the ulterior proceedings in the House of Lords there would be similar failures. It was with a view to remedy this that he made his proposal in the bill of last Session. If they were to deal with the corruption of these boroughs, he was convinced that some other mode of proceeding was necessary; and he was persuaded that the proposition to which all would ultimately come, would be for some kind of commission.

had seconded the motion of his gallant Friend; but after the discussion which had taken place, suggested the expediency of withdrawing the motion for the writ. When there were proceedings of this extraordinary nature; when the selection of counsel itself suggested a fair suspicion of the conduct of the case, it would be hardly proper that the writ should be sent down without inquiry.

was ready to acquiesce in the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend, and would withdraw his motion.

was desirous only of stating that the caution given by the Lord Chancellor to the witnesses, that they need not answer questions to criminate themselves, was, he believed, in accordance with the invariable custom of all who had occupied that high office. The original question and amendment were both withdrawn, and a select committee appointed—

" To compare the evidence adduced before the House of Lords, in the case of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill, with the evidence taken before the Sudbury Election Committee of the House of Commons, and to report upon the circumstances under which material witnesses examined before such committee were not produced at the bar of the House of Lords."

moved that the House resolve itself into a committee of Ways and Means,

rose to propose the amendment of which he had given notice, and to bring under the consideration of the House the propriety of repealing the law with reference to the exportation of coals, which was imposed during the last Session of Parliament. He felt that he was bound to make some apology to the House for the manner in which he brought this subject forward. He was most averse to make such a proposition by way of amendment to the motion for a committee of supply, or ways and means, and so interrupting the course of public business; but it was of the greatest importance to the persons engaged in the coal trade, that the views of the Government, and the opinion of that House should be imme- diately made known as to the course intended to be pursued with reference to the permanence of the existing tax. But for circumstances, however, which had occurred, he alluded to the failure of a large house on Thursday, and the recently expressed determination of the Government to appropriate to themselves every day in the week but one for public business, he should not have adopted this mode of proceeding; but, considering those circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to bring forward his motion without delay; and he was encouraged in this course by the consideration that it would not be very inconvenient to the Government. In introducing the subject, he begged to intimate that his object was to repeal the tax imposed during the last Session of Parliament. According to the forms of the House such a motion could only originate in a committee of the whole House. In considering such a question, it would be right that they should look to the grounds on which the tax had been imposed. And he begged to remark, that it had not been imposed for the purpose of checking the trade in the exportation of coal—it was not the intention of the Legislature to discourage that trade, under the impression that the supply of British coal was likely to be exhausted after the expiration of a short time, and that we should, therefore, economise the consumption as much as possible. It had been calculated that the supply of coal in the north was amply sufficient to last for 1,700 years; and an eminent geologist, who had sought to controvert this proposition, had himself admitted that, taking into consideration the coal fields of Wales, the total supply would be amply sufficient for 2,000 years to come. They had not been called upon, therefore, to impose this tax with a view to prevent that which might prove injurious to this country; but, on the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone), had expressly stated their belief that so small a duty as that which was proposed would have no operation in checking the foreign demand for this most important article of export The right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, in his celebrated speech in introducing the budget on the 11th March, 1842, had said:—

"I cannot conceive any more legitimate object of duty than coal exported to foreign countries. I speak of a reasonable and just duty, and I say, that a tax levied on an article produced in this country—an element of manufactures, necessary to manufactures, contributing by its export to increase the competition with our own manufactures—I think that a tax on such article is a perfectly legitimate source of revenue. I wish not at all to prohibit the export of coals, but I propose that the duty at first intended to be levied on coals exported in foreign ships should be paid, and with this view I propose that the duty of 4s. a ton shall be levied on coal exported in British as well as in foreign ships; thus removing the exemption which, under the reciprocity system, the foreign ships claim, and also removing all grounds of complaint. If the duty of 4s. shall be paid on the same number of tons as are now exported, I shall then derive an annual amount from this source of revenue of 200,000l.—not an inconsiderable increase of revenue, and operating, as few taxes do, to the encouragement of native industry."

Those who were opposed to the proposition, had declared their belief that these views were most erroneous. They had shown, that the repeal of the export duties had been adopted on the recommendation of a committee to which had been referred the state of the trade and manufactures of this country, on the ground that that step would be the means of creating a very valuable trade; they had shown, that since that repeal the extent of the foreign trade in coal had rapidly increased—a circumstance attributable to the larger demand for coals on the continent, owing to the increase of the use of gas, and steam, and manufactures; that the exportation to France in eight years had increased tenfold: that there was no monopoly in the trade, aud that it was not without difficulty that they maintained their price in the foreign market, but they had raised their voices in vain, and in spite of their assurances of the ill effects of such a measure, the tax was carried. The right hon. Baronet had said:—

" The export of coals was in the year 1836, 916,000 tons; and in 1838, it amounted to 1,313,000 tons. This is strong indication that the article would bear a small duty, and I doubt whether a 2s. and a 1s. duty will have any effect in reducing the exports. Every town on the continent is now, or about to be, lighted with coal-gas, and the English coal is peculiarly adapted for that purpose."

The conviction of the fallacy of these arguments had struck the minds of all men engaged in the coal trade, and if the calculations of the Government as to the increase in the trade should turn out to be fallacious, he thought that it would be admitted that it was the duty of the House to repeal the tax which had been imposed. How stood the facts? It had been said, that the tax met with the consent of the trade. He, however, was not there to make the present motion of his own accord. He had proposed it in consequence of the expressed wishes of the trade. He held in his hand a resolution arrived at by a committee which had sat at Newcastle for the management of the coal trade of Northumberland and Durham. He would not trouble the House with the terms in which it was couched; but they were extremely urgent in their demand that he should bring forward this motion. He had entertained a strong opinion upon the necessity of the repeal of this duty, but he had not ventured to take any step with that view, without taking the opinion of these gentlemen in the first instance. He had presented on that evening, and several hon. Gentlemen had, on previous occasions presented petitions from the trade, framed in the strongest terms of condemnation of this measure; and he thought, therefore, he might take the suggested assent of the trade to the proposition of the Government as being altogether disposed of. And finding that the persons interested in the question with one voice declared that this tax had been most injurious to their trade, let him ask whether their statement was not supported by the evidence which he should be prepared to adduce. The return for which he had moved, afforded very important information on this point. He found by that return that the trade had continued to increase, and that in 1841 it had reached 1,500,000 tons, exclusive of the exports to British possessions; but that in the last half-year of 1842, it had only reached 598,000 tons, being a falling-off of 153,000 tons on the half-year. But probably, the fairest comparison which could be instituted would be between the quarters ending April, 1842, and April, 1843, In the quarter ending April, 1842, the exports of coals to foreign countries reached 389,000 tons, while in that ending April, 1843, it bad fallen to 259,000 tons, that was a deficiency of 129,000 tons, or rather more than one-third the amount exported in the corresponding quarter before the imposition of this tax. But he did not rely on the mere evidence of the actual falling-off of the exports of coals. He had received some evidence as to the state of the prospects of this question; and he hoped, that he should not weary the House by bringing it forward. He should read to the House extracts of various letters which he had received, which appeared to him to be of very considerable importance. The first letter was from a gentleman who had the principal direction of one of the largest colliery estates in the north of England. His letter was dated 17th of May, and he wrote:—

" We have on hand 12,000 tons of oversea coals, round, besides small, lying at the pit's mouth, wrought since the 1st of January, expressly for exportation; and at this period last year we had not one ton, although we have wrought a smaller quantity during the present year than in the same period of the years 1841 and 1842."

He wrote again on the 31st of May, saying—

" Our trade at Sunderland has fallen away very much. Our heaps are daily increasing at the pit's mouth. I would recommend the dismissal of two hundred men and boys till heavy stocks in hand should be got rid of, but that they would have not the slightest chance of getting a day's work, great numbers being already out of work, and applying for relief, and that having nearly all gained settlements, they would have to be maintained at any rate. At present, I have a great number of orders for coals from France, but limiting the price of the coal and freight to such an amount as prevents me fulfilling them, the foreigner pays the duty here, which, if he was exempted from, would enable him to offer so much more price as would afford me the means of executing his commission."

In another letter he expressed himself thus:—

" Our correspondents in France, Germany, &c, buy the coals from us here at a certain price free on board, and authorise us to procure ships here at a certain freight per chaldron, and the limits which they have placed upon us this year are 10 per cent lower than last."

These statements were confirmed by other persons; and a gentleman who was engaged as the agent at Marseilles of a large house at Newcastle, long before any expectation of the imposition of such a tax was entertained, and in a general business letter, thus wrote—

" Notwithstanding the small number of vessels which have arrived here since the month of January, prices have not improved with us as the demand for English coal has decidedly fallen off very much. This is to be attributed to an amelioration which has taken place lately in the quality of the French coals, which are extracted in this neighbourhood, and who can afford to supply consumers at a price lower than what English coals can with profit be imported; there is no manner of doubt but that the export duty is very prejudicial to the English exporters, for we have not in one single instance seen prices rise in comparison with the duty, and upon so poor an article such a taxation as 2s. must fall very heavily,"

Parliament, in the last year, had relied on the supposed impossibility of foreign countries competing with us in the article of coals; it was in vain that they had been warned that by the imposition of such a tax as was proposed, they were holding out a strong inducement to the foreign producer to raise and bring forward his own coals; this letter distinctly showed how completely true this warning had been, and how much they had miscalculated the consequences of their acts. He had received another letter, an extract of which he would read to the House from a gentleman at Glasgow, largely engaged in trade: —

" English coal is cheaper in all the French markets than last year; the coalowner and shipowner have been obliged to pay, not only the duty, but a further reduction has been necessary to meet the increasing competition. When I say all the markets, I mean those with which I am daily in intercourse, say Bordcaux, Rouen, &c. I consider we have about lost the Dutch trade altogether. My partner at Stockton went over to close a contract of importance, but the proprietors of the German collieries got it. He left Amsterdam four or five weeks ago, without getting an order in the place."

He had several other letters to the same effect, with which he did not feel it necessary, after the strong testimony which he had already furnished, to trouble the House. But there was one remark which he felt it right to make. He had heard it suggested that it was impossible that a duty so small in amount as this could produce any serious consequences. He believed that this observation arose from an entire misconception of the case. There was not only the fact of the necessary additional cost arising out of the collection of the duty, but also the fact that the trade had been already subject to such competition that a very small addition in price would be more than could now be borne. A memorial had been presented to the right hon. Baronet in the course of the last year, remonstrating against the proposed tax. This memorial had been subsequently printed, and it stated that by this tax the small coal would be com pletely driven out of the market. At the present time this small coal, which was formerly exported, was being sold at Newcastle at from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d. the ton. It appeared from a communication which he held in his hand,

"The small coals exported are chiefly screened from the coals wrought for home consumption, and must either be sold or burnt at the pit, and, therefore, the coalowner is glad to take any price for this description rather than have them burnt at the colliery, which frequently subjects him to considerable expense from the damage done to the adjoining land and crops; therefore, any price is taken rather than suffer them to be burnt, that will defray something more than the expense of leading them to the place of shipment, so that collieries at a great distance are still obliged to burn immense quantities. I was at Langley the other day, and very large quantities are being heaped up at the collieries in that neighbourhood, which this mild and wet weather will cause to ignite spontaneously."

The effect of the duty was then to induce the coal-owner to destroy a great portion of this valuable fuel, as it would not pay the tax, and the expense of moving to the place of exportation. He did not know how it was possible to make out a stronger case that the imposition of this tax had had the effect of discouraging the coal trade. He showed that the duty existed formerly, and was repealed nine years ago, and from that time the existence of the export trade in coal might be dated. The principle then adopted had fully answered the purpose proposed, and the trade had made gradual springs, and had every year increased. The right hon. Baronet, last year, had endeavoured to show that the imposition of this tax was politic, because this export coal trade was an increasing trade, and that the constantly increasing disposition that was manifested abroad for the use of steam and gas should operate with the House to impose ths tax; but he had proved the fallacious nature of these arguments, when he had shown that the export trade in coal had fallen off one-third since the tax was imposed, and that there were now large orders for coal that had been sent to this country that could be executed but for the existence of this duty; and, also, that the French market, which formerly was the most valuable market for our coal, had, since the imposition of the duty, fallen off one-half, and that this important trade with France, which had increased ten-fold in six years, had fallen off one-half in six months; and, also, that the Dutch trade in coal, which was our next most valuable foreign coal trade, had fallen off almost entirely. He would, therefore, ask whether this duty, which the right hon. Gentleman distinctly declared was never meant to cheek or discourage the trade, had not had the effect of doing so. And be it observed, too, that the mischief was only just beginning. It was a trade which grew up by degrees, and would not fall off at once. To increase the supply of coal abroad, it was necessary to increase the facilities for sinking pits, and by making railroads and water conveyances, to afford easier access to the markets; and to do this, much time was necessarily required. No doubt all these circumstances were in operation when the duty was imposed, but still this duty would operate as a most powerful stimulus to them, and that which we were now only beginning to feel from opening of coalfields in France and Belgium, and Germany and Spain, would soon be most strongly experienced. It was well known that large capitals had been expended in producing coals in these countries and in conveying them to the places of consumption, and you might depend upon it that you would continue to feel more and more the effect of this pernicious duty in the encouragement and stimulus which it would give to the producers of coal in the countries he had alluded to. Do not suppose that when you feel the full effect of the operation of this tax that you will get rid of the consequences by merely repealing the duty. Far from it. There was a great difference between keeping a trade, and getting one back which you had lost. When you possessed a trade of this kind, the advantages were all of your side. There was an established connection, and your foreign customers were accustomed to look to you for the supply of the article, and to depend on you in their dealings and purchases. But when once you lost a trade, and afterwards sought to recover it, then the foreigner had all the advantage, and you had all possible difficulties in reacquiring a trade which had once been lost. This was particularly the case with regard to the coal trade, which never could be created, or carried on, without the investment of a large capital. It was well known that large sums had been recently invested in opening coal fields on the continent, and this tax would operate as a stimulus to this branch of industry in Belgium, Westphalia, and the South of France. The direct effect must be to encourage parties in these countries to embark in more extensive operations. It should be remembered, also, that when capital was invested in a pursuit of this kind, that it could not be withdrawn; and, although the coal might he sold at prices that would not pay in a distant market, still the owner of the mine would continue to work it at little or no profit. In some cases they would be glad to sell at any prices that they could obtain, as they would prefer working their mines on the chance of better returns at some future period. Was not this the case with the home market at the present time? How many collieries had been opened by parties who deeply regretted ever having expended their capital for such a purpose. The result, however, was, that they were obliged to make the best they could of a bad bargain, and sell their coal for what they could get. He believed, that almost every hon. Gentleman connected with the north of England could mention cases of this kind as coming within his own personal knowledge. By adopting this step, then, this country was tempting the foreigner to enter into "further competition with us, and which he could not maintain if the Government at once made a reduction in this duty. He repeated, that he believed that this duty would, within a short time, produce a most pernicious effect on the trade of this country. The right hon. Gentleman had received a warning on the subject at the time when he proposed the tax. The right hon. Gentleman must have seen the consequences of a similar error on the part of the Neapolitan government with respect to the sulphur trade. The events that had occurred in the proceedings of the sulphur trade in Naples must surely have been pregnant with instruction to the Government. The Neapolitan government, and nearly all the world besides, believed that that kingdom had a monopoly of the supply of sulphur, and an attempt was made to tax the consumers of sulphur in this country, by imposing a heavy tax on its exportation from Sicily. But what had been the effect of this? the ingenuity of our manufacturers and chemists was stimulated, and it never rested until they succeeded in manufacturing sulphur in this country; and when the government of Naples found out this, and although it instantly retraced its steps, still the sulphur produced in this country now successfully competed with that imported from Naples. This was a satisfactory proof of the impolicy and inexpediency of imposing atax on the exportation of an article to foreign countries, because you believe you possess peculiar advantages in producing it. There was a natural reluctance in all nations against being taxed in this way for the advantage of the country from whence it obtained supplies. There was a proof of this afforded in the proceedings which grew out of the conduct of the Neapolitan government with regard to the sulphur trade. The natural effect of imposing such a duty, was to create an indisposition in foreign countries to carry on this trade with us. The right hon. Gentleman, when he proposed this tax, laid great stress on the fact, that foreign countries laid a tax on the import of our coal into their territories; but a foreign country was perfectly justified in doing this, and although they were likely to be the sufferers by imposing a tax on raw produce, the case was very different from an export duty; he therefore would ask whether it was not most inexpedient to lay a tax on this side the water on coal, which it was expected the people of the continent would consume? He had alluded to the injurious effect of this tax on the export trade in coal, but it was also most injurious to the working population, and to the general trade of the country. Now, as to the effect of this tax on the state of the population of the country. He found it stated in a communication which he had already quoted from a gentleman who had been the director of one of the very largest collieries in the north of England, that the effect of the falling-off of the export trade in coal had been to lead to the lowering the wages of labour 20 per cent., a diminution which every man must regret. He was informed in a communication dated the 30th of April, that there had been a reduction of from 20 to 70 per cent, in the wages of the men employed in working coal for exportation. The effect of this was not confined to them, but affected all the persons employed in the trade, in the same way as he had pointed out with regard to its effects on the shipping interest. By increasing the competition amongst those employed in working for the home trade, you increased the difficulties which were already entailed in this trade. It was notorious, that the coal trade had for a long time been in a state of depression, and this impolitic tax had increased it, which was intended to impose a duty on the export trade to foreign countries. In a letter dated the 17th of May, the writer stated, that the distress of the working population had increased, in consequence of its having been found necessary to work short time, and with a further reduction in price. This state of distress had produced its constant effect and attendant—namely, discontent, and he was assured that attempts had been made by the workmen to organise a union, with the view of promoting a strike, so as to extort from their masters larger wages than he feared, it was possible for them to give. He was informed of this attempt some time ago, and he had received a letter dated the 6th of June, confirming this, and containing information which was not undeserving of attention. His correspondent observed that:—

" You are aware of the patience with which the workmen have hitherto borne it; but now that a union was in the course of formation, a great portion of the men had already joined it."

His correspondent attributed this state of things entirely to the scarcity of employment, and which had been greatly increased since April last, and it was calculated that from the short time the men were working, that they were not making more than eight or nine days in a fortnight, and at the present moment there were 14,000 or 15,000 tons of coal waiting for the foreign market. He had previously mentioned, that in April there were 12,000 tons waiting for exportation; but this letter of the 6th of June stated that the quantity of coal for exportation in hand had increased to 15,000 tons, for which there was no demand. Under these circumstances, although the coalowners had every desire to give full employment, and to keep up wages, it was impossible for them to maintain the labouring classes in the state which they anxiously wished. Such was the effect that had been produced on an important portion of our population by this most ill-judged interference with the coal trade. It would be well for the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department, to consider this state of things. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had received communications with respect to the state of the population in the mining districts of the north of England, from the lord-lieutenant and the magistrates of Durham, and he must say, that this very serious state of things had arisen from a want of employment, which WAS traceable to this impolitic tax. He should hare thought that the Government bad already difficulties enough to deal with, when he looked to the state of Ireland, and to the condition of the manufacturing districts after the disturbances of last autumn, without needlessly adding to them by stopping the trade in the mining districts. He had already stated that the shipping interest had suffered considerably. He had evidence to show that freights had been lowered to a ruinous extent, and the result had been, that instead of the tax falling on the foreign consumer, it fell on the British coalowner and the British shipowner, who felt it the more by the great reduction it had produced in the trade. He believed also, that it operated in another way, namely, that where we kept the trade, the loss was great. In the petition that he had presented that night from the borough of Sunderland, it was stated, most truly, that by means of the export of coal, many of our manufactures were sent to foreign countries which otherwise would not be sent there. Formerly cargoes were made up for several foreign ports, composed both of coals and manufactures, and that the cargo could not be made up if the latter only was freighted but by the imposition of this tax, the export of coals in conjunction with manufactures, was rendered impossible. But this was not the only effect of this tax on the shipowners and manufacturers of this country, for ships going out with cargoes of coal could import on cheaper terms than other vessels such articles as timber and tallow, and other bulky goods which were consumed in our manufactures. Now the interference with the trade by the tax, must have a very serious effect on the employment of our shipping, and on many connected branches of manufacture. Such were the consequences of this duty which the right hon. Baronet had recommended to the approbation of Parliament, because, as he alleged, it was different from all other taxes, as it was a duty favourable to British industry. He could not conceive a more objectionable principle for a Minister to lay down, and especially with respect to a tax which he had shown bad proved most unfavourable in its effects to the mining interest, to the shipping interest, and to the manufacturing interest. He ought previously to have observed, that he had been informed, that previous to the imposition of this duty, it was customary for the Great Westers and the other transatlantic steam ships to take out coal for their return voyages; but since the tax had been imposed, the Great Western and other large steamers made the voyage home with American coal. He thought there could not be a more striking fact as to the injurious effect of this tax. He was astonished, also, that the right hon. Gentleman, who generally was so well informed as to the effects that might follow from an injudicious observation, should have urged the adoption of this tax on coal, on account that the effects of its imposition would be to injure the manufactures of foreign countries. It was a most ill-judged and injurious principle to lay down, for it was holding out an inducement to foreign nations to retort upon us by imposing a tax on raw produce. America might be induced to apply this principle with respect to the importation of cotton to this country, and China and Italy with respect to raw silk. But low and miserable as this doctrine was, it did not apply in this case; for he was assured, on the very best authority, that the coal exported from this country was not used to any considerable extent by foreign manufacturers. Every body knew that manufactures, when carried on on an extensive scale, were large consumers of fuel, and they always concentrated at those spots where fuel was most accessible. Was not this the case in this country, where the manufacturers carried on their processes in the north, rather than the south? Were they not carried on in the north because the manufacturers could in those districts more conveniently and readily obtain a supply of coals? But the manufactures which were carried on on the continent were not supplied with our coals. All the manufactures that existed on a large scale on the continent were carried on contiguous to great fields of coal. The manufacturers of Saxony, Belgium, and Lyons, were supplied with coals obtained nearly on the spot, and they derived no advantage from our exported coals. The manufactures of Switzerland were carried on by the great water power which that country possessed; and he believed, that on inquiry it Would be found that no foreign manufacture which competed at all with the produce of this country, was in any way aided in its production by coal from this country. The only thing which we had to fear in a third market was the rivalry that arose from the competition to sell at the lowest prices. The coal which was exported from this country to the continent was used for steam navigation, making gas, for sugar refining, and for household purposes. He believed, that after the strictest search the right hon. Gentleman could not find an instance of a foreign manufacture which was a rival to the produce of this country in which the process was carried on by means of English coal. On this ground, therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman completely failed. In whatever light he regarded the tax, he found that it was productive of unmixed injury to British industry. It was a tax more directly limiting the employment of labour and the investment of capital than any tax imposed by the Government in modern times. He came next to consider the object for which this tax was imposed, and that object was to increase the revenue. It appeared from the papers on the Table, that the tax produced about 100,000l;. a year. The right hon. Gentleman calculated that it would produce 140,000l.; not in the whole year, he believed, but in the remaining portion of the financial year, after the tax was imposed. If this was the case the error into which the right hon. Gentleman had fallen was very great. [Sir R. Peel made an observation, which was not heard.] He was to understand, then, that this was not so, but that the estimate of 140.000l. was for the whole year. Now, although the miscalculation as to the amount of the produce of the tax was not so great as it was with respect to the Irish spirit duty, still it was very large. The tax, instead of yielding 140,000l. a year, yielded only 100,000l. which was ths gross produce, and by no means a clear addition to the revenue of that amount. The old duty on coal produced 12,000l. a year, so that the only gain, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman obtained by his tax was 88,000l., and this miserable sum was subject to reduction, in consequence of the increased expense of collection. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had informed him that he could not exactly tell what this amounted to, but the expense of having a person stationed to see every ship laden that was about to export coal must be very great, as it was an article which was very bulky; and some time must be taken up in lading a vessel. But after this deduction from the 88,000l., the right hon. Baronet did hot obtain all as clear gain, for this tax had had a most serious effect which he could not estimate, in diminishing the indirect revenue. It was notorious that the right hon. Gentleman's Budget of last year had proved more unfortunate in the accuracy of its predictions than any Budget which the oldest Member of that House could recollect, and this had chiefly arisen from the falling-off in the revenue derived from the duties on articles of consumption. At the commencement of the Session her Majesty, in the Speech from the Throne, had been recommended to say:—

" Her Majesty regrets the diminished receipt from some of the ordinary sources of revenue. Her Majesty fears that it must be in part attributed to the reduced consumption of many articles caused by that depression of the manufacturing industry of the country which has so long prevailed, and which her Majesty has so deeply lamented."

Now, if the House would reflect on this language of her Majesty, and look to the state of the coal trade, and to the state of the shipping trade, and consider that the wages of the men engaged in this branch of industry had been materially reduced, and also that the incomes of their employers had been reduced, the House could not doubt that this new tax had had a considerable share in reducing the proceeds of the indirect taxation of the country. But they must not stop here: for it was well known, that when distress and want of employment existed as regarded one branch of industry, that the employment of persons engaged in other pursuits was diminished. He had shown, in the early part of the Session, the effect that the diminution of the coal trade at Sunderland had upon persons engaged in other pursuits there; and it would appear from all that he had seen, that directly or indirectly, a blow given to one branch of trade was felt through the interests of the community, and it must most seriously affect the revenue derived from indirect taxation. He was convinced, that if they made an allowance for the amount of the defalcations that had been caused by this tax in other branches of taxation, it would appear that it had ' actually produced nothing at all to the revenue. Indeed, he was convinced that the Treasury had been rather a loser than a gainer by a tax which had been thus injurious to our trade in so many ways. If, therefore, it was to be regarded as a question of revenue, there could be no hesitation as to the propriety of removing the tax. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, how could he reconcile the continuance of this tax with the grounds which he urged for the adoption of another part of his Budget last year? The right hon. Gentleman proposed to take off the entire duties on the export of our manufactures, and in so doing, he expressed himself in the following language:—

"There are at present duties levied on the export of certain British manufactures—a doctrine which I think contrary to every sound principle of legislation."

Now he (Viscount Howick) would ask, what the right hon. Baronet meant by a sound principle of legislation? Was it other than this, that those export duties were taxes levied on the produce of British industry? Were not coals, he would ask, as much the produce of British industry as any article of British manufacture? Were they not as much so as cotton twist or linen yarn? Were coals not like these articles, useful in foreign manufactures? Was not a tax on coals a tax contrary to the principle maintained by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that it was inexpedient and injurious to British trade to lay export duties on the produce of British industry? The right hon. Gentleman also said:—

" These duties I find amount to 103,000l. a-year."

Now, it was singular enough that this was about the gross sum which was realised by the export duty on coals:—

"I propose," (the right hon. Gentleman went on) " to remit altogether the export duties on British manufactures, and thus there will be incurred a loss to the revenue of 103,000l. a-year."

He would ask the House to contrast these two duties. The one was on the export of British manufactures, of merely nominal amount, complained of by nobody -—a tax which in its operation, was unfelt, and of which nobody, even at a period when trade was most distressed, ever thought of saying caused that distress; yet the right hon. Gentleman had repealed that tax, because it was contrary to the principles he had laid down, that the exports of British industry should not be taxed. But when the right hon. Gentleman repealed that tax, he imposed another tax; and he imposed it on the exportations of British industry, of which the effects had been plainly predicted would be most injurious, and which experience had shown to be most injurious, which was attended with much danger of losing a valuable trade altogether. And the tax which the right hon. Gentleman had imposed on British trade was not a nominal tax complained of by nobody, but a real, substantial, onerous impost, of which many complained. Was there any consistency in the two measures?Was there any good reason assigned why they should adopt the one in order to supply the exigencies of the revenue, which would not equally apply to that change which the right hon. Gentleman had recommended to the committee?Were not these two measures rather examples of that disposition which his noble Friend, the Member for the city of London had adverted to a few nights ago, truly remarking that it was a most extraordinary disposition in a Government professing Conservative principles—a disposition not to make judicious and well-weighed improvements, but to make changes for the sake of change, rashly meddling, and most unnecessarily meddling with every branch of trade, unsettling everything, and settling nothing —changes which were injurious to every branch of trade—which, as the House had seen, had practically issued in the utter disappointment of all the hopes which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed when he had proposed those measures to the House. This was the case which be had had to bring before the House, and he trusted that if her Majesty's Government persevered in maintaining this tax, it would not find a disposition in that majority which had enabled the Government to carry its determinations into effect in other instances, to support it in maintaining this tax, which was alike inconsistent with principle and plainly injurious to the best and most important interests of the country. The noble Lord concluded by moving as an amendment, that the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider so much of the act 5 and 6 Vic, cap. 47, as relates to the exportation of coals.

said, at that late hour he should not occupy the time of the House by any endeavour to defend the Government against the invective aimed at their general policy with which the noble Lord had wound up his speech. The noble Lord had, perhaps, thought of the wearisomeness of his subject, and had attempted to give it some relish for the palate of those around him, by introducing a question not at all relevant to that which he was dis- cussing. Whether the effort had been successful or not he would leave the noble Lord's supporters to judge. There were a great many general topics introduced into the speech of the noble Lord, over which he should take leave to pass altogether, and which, he must say, appeared to him to have but a very remote connexion with the question before them. They did not want to be instructed in such propositions as these,—that if they narrowed and restricted one branch of trade, their doing so had an effect on other trades connected with them; that if they imposed one tax, it had a tendency to render other taxes less productive; that if they lost a trade, it was more difficult to recover it than to gain it originally. He must take leave to tell the noble Lord, that these general dicta required no elaborate demonstration—no solemn announcement to that House, as if they were disputed propositions; they were matters which the noble Lord might take for granted, and which he would not trouble himself to discuss. He should consider the facts of the case, as they affected the revenue. To that issue alone he should direct the attention of the House. The noble Lord had spoken of the different arguments which had been used to support the determination of the Government by different persons, and to illustrate the operation of the tax; but he should neither refer to those arguments, nor rely on them. Some of those who opposed the measure said it was injurious, because foreign nations regarded it as a matter of feeling, and would not purchase commodities on which we laid a tax for the purpose of collecting a revenue. He could hardly believe that; and if it were so, it was very strange in those foreign nations, for they were accustomed to levy taxes on articles exported to this country, for the purpose of raising a revenue on them. He could not believe in such a statement, because they knew that the tax had been levied for the exigencies of the Government, and not for the purpose of levying a tax on them. Nor had he heard of a single instance of any Government taking umbrage at a tax which they knew was intended exclusively to supply the deficiences of our own revenue. He would not argue the question with reference to the exhaustion of the domestic supply, which was no part of the issue. Nor would he argue it on the ground which the noble Lord had based it, that he be- lieved the tax had been imposed contrary to the assent of the coal-trade. The Government would be placed in a very perilous position were it to regulate the imposition of taxes, or to found its support of a tax on the assent of those who were to be subjected to it. He was surprised that the noble Lord should have put the case as he did with evident triumph against the Government on the ground that Gentlemen of the Conservative party at Sunderland and in that House concurred with the noble Lord in reprobating the tax. The same argument might be applied to other things, on which some Gentlemen agreed with the noble Lord. Without questioning the veracity of the gentlemen concerned in the coal-trade, and who had opposed the tax, he could not assent to the arguments which they had brought forward. He was not disposed to believe that the Members of that House were prepared to adopt all the arguments of those who were interested in the trade, and who averred that the decay of their trade was caused by taxation. The same kind of arguments were used by the Members of every other trade, who readily attributed to taxation the impoverishment of the trade they followed. The noble Lord in his speech had not alluded at great length to what was really the most important part of the question, because it was connected with several other subjects, namely, the influence on the finances and revenue of the country which would result from the repeal of the coal-tax itself. He would call on the House to consider whether it were advisable in the present state of our finances to go into the question of a repeal of duties, or whether the state of our finances were now such as to justify the House in opening up the whole question of our import and export duties. When his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought the state of the finances before the House, he believed that the House thought his right hon. Friend exercised a proper caution in abstaining from proposing any remission of taxation in the present condition of the revenue. His right hon. Friend showed a probability of some surplus in the ordinary branches of the revenue, but he had also referred to other pecuniary obligations which might arise, and to some payments depending for foreign countries, which made it unwise, in his right hon. Friend's opinion, to propose the repeal of any taxation. The noble Lord said he had succeeded, he thought, in making out a strong case against the Government for the remission of the coal tax; but there were other cases stronger than the coal trade in which the same demands were made for relief— demands which, if the House should assent to the noble Lord's motion, hon. Gentlemen would soon make, and the House would find it impossible to deny. If the House should consent to repeal the coal duty, they could not abstain from repealing other duties; and he trusted therefore that the House would reject the motion of the noble Lord. The same arguments now urged by the noble Lord were the same which he urged last year, and which then made no impression on the House. The House last year had adopted the coal-tax by a large majority, which implied the adherence to the proposition of Gentlemen on all sides of the House. The question then was, had any circumstances since transpired and so altered the aspect and character of the duty, that the House should now resolve, after a short period of only nine months, to repeal that duty, which was last year imposed by such a large majority. If the noble Lord had proved his case—if all the noble Lord's allegations had been made good—he should have grave doubts of the propriety of again opening the question of repealing duties which could not be undertaken without exciting the demands of other interests— interests larger, far more important than those which the public had advocated for the repeal of several duties. But the allegations of the noble Lord had not been proved. Could the noble Lord say that the experience of nine months was all that was required—was it sufficient to enable the House to conclude that it formed a correct judgment when it proposed to reverse the decision to which the House came last year after long debates? He said that nine months were not sufficient, and that it would be highly derogatory to the character of the House, after so brief an experience, to change its course on a great public question, to which it had given so much attention only a few months before. He was surprised that the noble Lord should not look to any other cause for the decay of the coal trade than the duty on the export of coals. The state of the trade was, he admitted, not flourishing; but had the coal duty caused the whole of the decay? The gentlemen engaged in it were, no doubt, unanimous in saying so, but that unanimity was similar to that which might be found amongst all gentlemen concerned in every other trade. They felt the depression of the trade—they knew, perhaps, nothing of an excess of production— nothing of the falling-off in the demand at home—nothing of the opening of new mines abroad—a knowledge of these things might be beyond their means, but they all knew of the money that was paid into the Treasury on the export of coal, and they sought relief by demanding the repeal of that tax. He did not deny that remitting the tax would give relief—he did not deny that it might improve trade—but he did deny that the imposition of the tax had caused all the distress which prevailed. The noble Lord asked, what was the object of the duty? He would say that it was not intended to operate against foreign countries. The proposition, as he understood it, was this, that it was thought that a duty of 1s. a ton on small coals, and 2s. a ton on large coals, would yield a considerable sum to the revenue, and on that ground the proposition received the assent of Parliament. The object of the tax, then, was revenue, and he could not admit that the tax had not succeeded to the extent stated by the noble Lord. The revenue derived from the tax had been understated by the noble Lord. The noble Lord thought, no doubt, that he was acting fairly when he took three quarters of the year as a criterion, adding two quarters of last year to one quarter of this. He must say, however, that it was not a fair test. The noble Lord took the returns for three-fourths of the year, and, adding another fourth, he said that the revenue for that fourth would be in the same proportion as the other three-fourths; but this he should show was not the case. It was not a fair test of the coal trade to take as the produce of four quarters the duty levied on three, and assume that the produce of the other quarter must be proportionate. The great export of coals took place in the two summer quarters, and in the two winter quarters, as the noble Lord knew, there were not near so many coals exported as in the two summer quarters. If then they took the produce of the duty in three quarters, and two of these were winter quarters, and added a third part of that sum to make up the produce of the year, they could not get the whole duty. The two winter quarters, in fact, would only give two-fifths, or rather one-third, instead of one-half of the whole. It appeared by the returns, that the tax had yielded from 112,000l. to 114,000l., which was not so far short, as the noble Lord stated, of 140,000l. Certainly, in a revenue, such as ours, of 48,000,000l. and 50,000,000l., that might appear a small sum; but in the particular condition of this country, and judging from experience of what were likely to be the demands of other parties for the repeal of taxes, even that sum could not be spared. About 112,000l. or 114,000l., then, was the produce of the tax, and he said that he did not know any taxation that was levied at a cheaper rate. No additional establishments were necessary, and though it was impossible to tell the exact expense of collecting the tax; for the returns, as his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated, showed only the gross, and not the net expense of collection. He admitted the trade had been stationary, or, rather, that it had latterly not increased as rapidly as formerly. The trade was of great magnitude, and because, after the tax had been laid on, it did not go on increasing, it was immediately concluded, that the imposition of the tax was the cause of why the trade did not increase. There was another circumstance to be considered besides the magnitude and the increase of the trade. The noble Lord had said, that the trade was not so great in the first quarter of 1843 as in the first quarter of 1842, and, therefore, he had inferred, that the trade had decreased one-third. But the noble Lord should recollect, that if the export trade was less in the first quarter of 1843 than in the first quarter of 1842, some other cause might be pointed out for the decrease than the tax. The noble Lord had overlooked the effect of his right hon. Friend's measures. It was on the 11th of March, that his right hon. Friend announced his intention of levying a duty on the export of coals, and the quarter not ending before April 5th, the consequence of his announcement was, that a great export of coal took place. But the duty did not come into operation till the 9th of July, and all the parties engaged in the trade exerted themselves to the utmost to export coals before that period. There could not be a doubt, that the announcement of his right hon. Friend gave a great stimulus to the export trade of coals. It should also be remembered, that at first the duty with which the trade was threatened was an export duty of 4s. per ton on all coals, while the duty finally levied was a duty of 2s. on large coals, and 1s. on small coals. The figures certainly did not give an accurate view of the transactions, but they confirmed what he stated. It appeared, then, that the declared value of the coals exported to the 5th April, 1842, from the beginning of March, 1842, was more than double the usual quantity. He would tell the noble Lord what he (Mr. Gladstone) thought a fair criterion, and that was the first quarter of the year 1841, a period at which no duty had been announced, and when the trade was in a regular course and condition. That condition was an improving one, but the improvement was steady and gradual, whereas the increase of the trade in 1842 was altogether unnatural, and solely brought about by the stimulus of the prospective duty. He would take the first quarter of 1841, as a fair standard of comparison; and he found, that the export of coal to foreign countries in that quarter was only 236,000 tons, whereas the export in the first quarter of 1843 was 259,255 tons, exhibiting an increase of 23,000 tons, or about 10 per cent. Therefore, the duty, as far as it could be judged of by experience, very limited in point of time, was compatible with the maintenance of that export trade at the magnitude it had attained, even when there was no prospect of an increased duty. From a return of the first five months of the present year, in which return, however, the exports to British possessions and foreign countries were not distinguished, the quantity of coals exported from the United Kingdom was 715,000 tons, whereas, the exports in the corresponding five months for the year 1841 amounted to 707,000 tons. Some hon. Gentlemen might think, that including the exports to the British possessions vitiated the return; but he believed, that in that department of exports there had been a decrease. But even that decrease could not enable the House to judge fairly of the case. It should be remembered, that the stimulus and excitement of the trade of last year had been necessarily followed by the corresponding reaction and languor of this year. Those immense quantities of coal which were sent abroad during the four months the tariff was under discussion had, of course, supplied part of the demand which would have been periodically furnished in the regular and legitimate way. This he would prove by a letter, dated the 5th of June, from the Consul at Brest, and received that day. The Consul stated,—

" Early in 1842, the contractors holding large contracts with the French Government applied to the Government to authorise the immediate completion of their contracts for 1842 and 1843, so that they might evade the new duty in England."

This was granted, and accounted for the difference in the number of ships employed in 1842 and 1843. Those contractors exported and introduced into France a large quantity of coals, which but for the prospect of the duty would have appeared as the exports partly of the present portion of the year and of the ensuing half of it. But that was not all; the merchants laid in two years' stock. He did not contend, that the noble Lord's predictions had been falsified, but that this was not the time for the House to do anything, experience being against the proposition of the noble Lord. The consul continued:—

" It therefore may be asserted with certainty, that the imports of British coals into France have not diminished in consequence of the new duty in England; and that those imports will gradually increase as the stock in hand is expended. It is likely that the importations will be greater next year than during any preceding year"

As far as he was aware, that report had been made without any leading question having been put, to direct the consul's mind to any future view of the course of the coal trade; it was, he believed, the unbiassed judgment of the consul upon the circumstances with which he was cognizant. The noble Lord said, that the trade with France and Holland was ruined. How could the noble Lord come to such a conclusion yet? No doubt there was a considerable diminution in the export to Holland. [An hon. Member: " No, there is not."] Well, so much the better. But, suppose it were so—the noble Lord could make no fair charge upon the duty in consequence of it. There were many other circumstances of an unfavourable nature which ought to be taken into consideration. In Holland a very large quantity of coal had been used for manufacturing purposes:—that was to say, for distilleries and sugar refineries, which were at present in a state of unexampled depression. There were special causes for this state of things. The Dutch refiners of sugar, up to a very recent period, had enjoyed the advantage of the importation of refined sugar into Upper Germany, which was taken away only about twelve months ago, he believed. But, whether that was the case or not, that branch of trade in Holland was greatly depressed. The consul at Rotterdam wrote on the 6th of June,

" There is a considerable reduction in the import of coals. This is accounted for in the first place by the large stock laid in by the dealers previous to the levying of the English duties of 1s. and 1s.; in the second place, by the consumption falling-off, in consequence of the present unfavourable state of the distilleries and sugar refineries; and lastly, coal from Belgium has in that particular district been coming into use. It is not a question of price, whether one or the other description of coal is sold at 6d, or 1s. a ton higher or lower, but the question is merely one of quality, the Belgian coal being preferred for certain purposes."

Taking these two markets with respect to which the predictions of the noble Lord were most gloomy, there was then the assurance that in France there was not likely to be a decrease, but, on the contrary, an increase. In the case of Holland it could not be known whether there would be a decrease or not.; but they knew that trade there was dead, and that other causes naturally tended to prevent a greater importation of coal. But there was yet another cause for the depression of the coal trade; the mildness of the winter season, which had necessarily tended very much to reduce the consumption of coals both on the continent and in this country. The returns of the imports into London for the last three years were—for 1840, 2,566,000 tons; for 1841, 2,909,000 tons; for 1842, 2,723,000 tons. There was therefore a diminution even in London, where the importation was free from the duty. A great part of the noble Lord's argument was to the effect, that there had been a very great increase in the price of coals in foreign countries. But much had been heard of stimulus to foreign ventures and inducement to invest capital in foreign mines; and in what could that consist unless in the increase of the price in the foreign market? That, generally speaking, was hardly perceptible. In Havre the wholesale price was, before the imposition. of the duty, 22s.10d. a ton; now it was 24s. 1 ½d. a ton An account which he had procured from the best authority he could command, while it confirmed that statement of the wholesale price, added, that the retail price was not altered in the least; 3 ¾ francs to 4 francs was the price, and had been so constantly for some years. At Rotterdam and at Antwerp there was likewise very little alteration. At Ham- burgh the price formerly was 18s. 6d. to 19s. 6d.; and at present it was from 19s. 6d. to 20s. But it would be asked, " Who then has paid the duty? According to the noble Lord it must have been paid three or four times over, by the coal-owner, the ship-owner, and the foreign consumers. The loss had fallen upon the middle class, between the coalowner and the shipowner. He admitted that freight, was lower at present than in former years. But was not the clause for that to be found in the general condition of trade? The ships which carried coals were not a class of ships limited to that kind of burthen and nothing else; and if there were a pressure upon the coal trade, the noble Lord would tell the House that it would have an effect upon the freights of other trades. The history of freights showed a downward course from year to year, while trade had been flourishing and increasing, according to the allegation of the noble Lord. Up to last year this was a flourishing trade, growing from year to year, and during that time freights were going on diminishing, and the diminution of former years was greater than that since the duty was laid on. The returns of freights from the port of Sunderland to Paris and other ports along the same coast for the last three years were as follows:—In 1840 it was per ton, 10s. 9d.; in 1841, 9s. 3d.; in 1842, 8s. 3d.; in 1843, 7s. 9d. There was a fall of 6d. after the duty was laid on; but the fall of 1841 should be compared with 1840, when there was no such duty. If the noble Lord then contended that such diminution in the freight was to ruin the shipowner, he replied that formerly there was a much greater diminution which did not ruin the shipowner nor put a stop to the trade. The returns with regard to the freightage to Bordeaux were —In 1840 freightage per ton, 13s. 9d.; 1841, 13s. 6d; 1842, 12s. 6d.; 1843, 11s. 3d. With regard to Amsterdam, the return was, in 1840, freightage, per ton, 11s. 6d.; 1841, 11s.; 1842, 9s. 9d.; 1843, 9*. 6d. Undoubtedly freights had gone down; but it was in consequence of the general depression and stagnation of trade, and not on account of the imposition of the coal-tax. He had shown them that, so far from the tax having injured the trade, it had flourished under that tax, and would continue to flourish, even coupled with the unfavourable circumstances of the existing depression in trade. He contended, therefore, that the noble Lord had made out no case to induce or to justify the House in reversing the vote they had come to by a large majority last year after much discussion, and after the noble Lord had urged with laudable perseverance the same statements upon the House, but without effect. The noble Lord's topics were irrelevant to the question. If the noble Lord had shown that the tax had failed to increase the revenue, and that it was mischievous to the trade of the country, there would have been some plausibility in the course taken by the noble Lord, but he thought he had proved the reverse of that position. It would not be for the general interest of the country to accede to the motion of the noble Lord, and it was perfectly clear that the wise and sober course for the House to pursue, was to wait and see the effect of a full and fair operation of the tax, so that they might be in possession of ample means and information to enable them to come to a correct and safe judgment upon the question.

agreed partly with the right hon. Gentleman and partly with the noble Lord. The noble Lord had never said that this tax was the sole cause of the depression of the coal trade, but that it had been aggravated thereby. All that his right hon. Friend had attempted to prove was, that the case of the coal trade was not quite so bad as some might think it was. He did not lay much stress upon any documents except such as had received the sanction of official authority, but he could not help reminding the House that there had been evidence delivered before committees on railway bills which showed very clearly that this duty had worked very ill, both for the coal-owners and for the public, and for every class engaged in or connected with collieries. It appeared that upon the line of one railway there were seven collieries, five of which had recently been suspended. He hoped the House would also bear in mind that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did not pretend to say that foreigners paid the tax which had been imposed upon coals; neither did he appear to have succeeded in combatting that part of the speech of the noble Lord in which he had shown that our coal trade with Holland had very materially declined. Then this duty on coals afforded no compensation for the disadvantage which it was likely to occasion us in time of war by depriving us of the service as pilots of the captains of colliers. The contraband trade had been suppressed, and now our sole dependence for pilotage, in the event of a war, rested with the captains of colliers, for from smuggling we could no longer derive any assistance.

although extremely loath to occupy the attention of the House at that late hour, more especially after his noble Friend the Member for Sunderland had so completely exhausted every part of the subject of debate, yet was still anxious to offer a few comments on what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. It seemed to him that 88,000l. was the amount, was the real amount of revenue which this tax had produced, and this sum was derived principally at the expence of the coal trade. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was great distress in the coal districts, he admitted that this was a co-operating cause of this distress, was it not therefore the duty of the House to relieve that distress by seizing the earliest opportunity of repealing that duty, and not wait until this beneficial trade was irretrievably lost? What was the country with which this export trade was principally carried on? Why France, with which country he (Lord H. Vane) was most anxious that commercial relations should be cultivated, and he therefore would deprecate any measure which like the present duty would throw Impediments in the way of that trade. The tendency of this tax was evidently to interrupt that trade. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, when he had unfolded a sort of geological map of France last year, had spoken as if France possessed no mines. Now, he (Lord H. Vane) had referred lately to a statistical work published under the authority of the administration des Ponts et Chaussées in Paris, wherein he found that there were mines in active work in France in thirty-six: departments, and sixty-one mines not worked, but which would receive a stimulus from the French government provided that this export duty continued, and what was to prevent British capital from being employed in the working of these mines? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose an export duty on British capital? For notwithstanding the cavils—not with standing the feverish state of the public mind in France, one-half of the original shares of the Rouen Railway were provided by English shareholders, and at this moment, one half of the remaining half was held by English capitalists. But then it was urged that the French imposed an import duty on coal, but this was a proof that France was not under the necessity of taking English coal, but she took it because she received a cheaper article and derived revenue from it besides, it is not, therefore, in our power to cause the money which is derived to the French exchequer as import duty, to be derived to the British Exchequer as export duty. In 1834, when Mr. Poulett Thomson took off the then export duty, he enunciated broadly and distinctly the proposition that when all other export duties had been taken off, it was not just to the coal trade not to remove the export duty on coals. The right hon. Baronet at the head of a great party opposed to the Government of that day, did not gainsay this proposition, or oppose the taking off of the tax. Mr. Warburton, no longer a Member of this House, and the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) were the only objectors. The result of this general acquiescence, was the belief that no export duty would be hereafter imposed. Capital was then invested in coal mines, railroads were constructed, and harbours improved and nowhere had commercial enterprise been more conspicuously displayed than in Durham, villages arose where only a few scattered habitations were before to be found, an industrious population was encouraged to Immigrate there. The first effect of the imposition of this export duty, was the emigration of colliers, men of substance, who entertained forebodings of the necessary result of this measure, and what was technically termed the laying in of collieries. If there was a passive acquiescence in the duty last year, there was a consentaneous opinion of all classes against it this year. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, had referred to the employment of our coal in sugar refineries; now, it was certain that three-fourths of the coal exported, was used for steam and navigation purposes. His noble Friend the Member for Sunderland, had presented a remarkable petition from Newport in Monmouthshire, in perfect accordance with a memorial presented last year to the right hon. Baronet from the manufacturers on the Tyne, who knew well to what countries coal was exported, and to what purposes applied. The averment in their memorial was, that coal was furnished to them at a much cheaper rate in consequence of the export trade. Be sides it is well known, that in consequence of the export of a bulky article like coal which defrayed the freight, our manufacturers were enabled to export articles in which we were in a state of inferiority to the foreigner, whether this inferiority arose from the more intuitive taste of the foreigner, from a more genial climate, or from longer habit, was it wise therefore, was it expedient, at a moment, when, although there was a revival of the cotton trade, the great staple industries of wool and iron were still depressed to run the risk of adding to the large catalogue of unemployed? You are not asked to give any artificial aid, or to divert capital from its natural courses; hut to let a commercial people take advantage of their natural advantages, without cramping their operations by a legislative measure unproductive of revenue. The manufacturers on the Tyne, who know that the coal exported to St. Petersburg is principally for domestice purposes, are well aware that it is not with imported coal that foreign manufacturers can compete with them, their manufactories must be situated in the immediate neighbourhood of coal mines—it is so with those of Westphalia, of Silesia, of the Rhenish Provinces, of the Netherlands, of Lyons, and because fuel is dear at Rouen, together with other causes of dearness, such as the proximity of the capital, trade has declined and migrations have taken place. We ask you not to uphold a law which yields little to the revenue and inflicts a great deal of mischief. The right hon. Gentleman says, that the motive of my noble Friend is premature, that the duty is an experiment, and that there has not been sufficient time to test it. We have had enough experience of its injurious effects. The right hon. Gentleman has afforded us an exemplification of the saying, that it is easy to group figures, for notwithstanding this plausible statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the comparison instituted by my noble Friend between the first three months of 1842, and the first three months of 1843, was a fair and just one. It demonstrated that the measure had had the effect of impeding the coal trade, we should lose no lime in repealing the duty before the trade was lost, as representation of a district suffering from this experiment, he would most gladly and conscientiously give his vote for the motion of his noble Friend the Member for Sunderland.

would consider it his duty to give his vote in support of the proposition of the noble Lord. He entertained considerable doubts as to the policy of agitating a measure which had been so recently settled, but its results had been disastrous, and the proposition having been made, he felt compelled to vote for the repeal of this tax. Having so recently entered at considerable length into details to show the inconveniences which must necessarily result from the imposition of the tax, both to the coalowner and the shipowner, from the falling-off in the demand and the diminution of price and rate of freight, at that late hour he would not occupy the time of the House by again going over the same ground; but he had possessed himself of a few statistics of the trade, which he trusted he might be allowed to lay before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade seemed to think that the imposition of the duty would not in any way interfere with the export of coal; he would submit to the House a very short statement which would prove the very injurious nature of the tax. The returns he was possessed of related only to the north of England; but he had no doubt that returns from Scotland would show the same result. From 1804 to 1825, when the duty on round coal was 6s. 5d. and on small coal 1s. 8d.. the export did not increase one single ton. From 1831 to 1834, when the duty was 2s. 8d. a ton, the export rose from 161,217 tons to 230,142 tons or an average of 8 per cent, per annum; while from 1834 to 1841, when there was no duty, it increased from 230,342 tons to 736,947 tons, or at an average of 30 per cent per annum. He would refer to the quantity of coal exported to different foreign countries during the year 1840. It was as follows:—France, 369,511 tons; Holland, 203,131 tons; Denmark, 124.691 tons; Prussia, 89,443 tons; and the rest of Germany, 119,600 tons.He would not enter more particularly into the subject and conclude by stating that it was his intention to support the motion of the noble Lord.

wished merely to make a short statement to the House in answer to the argument deduced by the noble Lord from the alleged falling-off in the export of coals from this country during the first three months of 1843, as compared with those of 1842; but that comparison, he contended, did not afford a fair test; the cause of the decrease arose from the previously enormous exportation which took place during the four months immediately preceding the imposition of the tax. What were the facts? The total quantity exported during those four months, in 1841, was in value 258,690l., in the same four months of last year it was 350,626l., showing an increase of no less than 91,936l. Was it surprising that the trade should, after that unnatural stimulus, suffer a period of stagnation? Besides, the wide spread distress throughout the country, affecting as it did every trade, and the iron trade especially, was in itself a sufficient cause for the present depression in the coal trade. A great deal had been said about the decrease of our export to foreign countries; but he maintained that there had been no decrease. He would institute a fairer comparison than the noble Lord, and taking the years 1841 and 1843—this was the result:—

In 1841, the exports to Russia were	70,000 tons
In 1843 the exports to Russia were	83,000 tons
In 1841, to Sweden	26,000 tons
In 1843, to Sweden	37,000 tons
In 1841, to Denmark	151,000 tons
In 1843 to Denmark	145,000 tons

That was a slight falling off, but it was there that we had less reason to dread competition than anywhere else:—

In 1841, to Holland	173,000 tons
In 1843	180,000 tons
In 1841, to France	451,000 tons
In 1843	515,000 tons
In 1841, to the United States	52,000 tons
In 1843	60,000 tons

Making allowance then for the unnatural impetus and consequent temporary depression occasioned by the first imposition of the tax, the House would see that the export of coal was decidedly upon the increase instead of the decrease; and he felt the greatest pleasure in being able to tell the House that the export of coal during May this year was nearly the same as during the same month last year, and that it considerably exceeded that of the year before. Now, with regard to Sunderland and Newcastle-on-Tyne, taking the weeks ending the 5th of May and 5th of June, 1842, as compared with the weeks ending the 5th of May and 5th of June, 1843. For the two weeks ending the 5th of June, 1843, the export was 183,000 tons from Newcastle; whereas, in 1842, the same months, it was 177,000 tons. He was sorry that he could not say, that the same improvement had taken place at Sunderland; but that was accounted for by local causes, which had diverted the trade from that port. That that was the case appeared from the fact, that from 1840 there had been a falling-off at Sunderland and a corresponding increase at Hartlepool and other ports. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that this tax was imposed for the purpose of raising revenue, and he should like to know in what way the noble Lord would raise the same amount of revenue with so little inconvenience to any branch of the trade of this country? That was the question for the House to decide; and he trusted that they would not hastily, under present circumstances, deprive the revenue of the produce of so convenient and reasonable a duty.

said, an observation which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and which had been put forward before by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, made him anxious to say a few words. The hon. Gentleman asked was this a period, and were the circumstances such as to call on Gentlemen to vote against the continuance of any tax, however inconvenient it might be? During the last Session he had voted against several duties, as, for instance, the timber duties, and felt himself justified in giving those votes, though he should not feel justified in repeating them during the present Session. However, with regard to two measures which the Government brought forward during the last Session, the coal duty and the duty on Irish spirits, they had as measures of revenue so completely failed, and had inflicted so much injury on the trade, prosperity, and, in the instance of Irish spirits, on the morals of the country, that he should feel justified in voting, as he certainly should do, against both those taxes. He begged the House to recollect the language which was used last year in discussing this measure. They were then told it would produce 140,000l. a year without inconvenience or injury to any portion of the community. He wished some hon. Members had been present to hear what were the effects produced on the people by the tax which brought that miserable amount to the national coffers. He wished that at an earlier hour of the evening every hon. Member now in the House had been present to hear the petitions from the ship- ping and coal owning interests of the north, as well as of the revelations of hon. Gentlemen belonging to both parties, who clearly showed that if they wished to arrest the progress of the evil they had no time to lose. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had asked them to await the experience of another year. But what was the experience of the past and the present? Was the existing state of things promised us by the Government when they brought forward their measures last Session? Nothing, on the contrary, was more striking than the contrast. The fact was, that it produced only 88,000l with great injury to our trade. Between the language of the President of the Board of Trade this evening and that of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury last year, when he proposed to abolish the duties on the exportation of British manufactures, and said he thought that export duties were founded on false principles. However, in the course of the same Session the right hon. Baronet proposed the imposition of this duty, and what were the special grounds on which he supported it? The right hon. Baronet said this country enjoyed great natural advantages with reference to coal, and that by this duty we should be taxing the foreigner and not our own people. That had a very plausible sound; but he at the time took the liberty of saying that it was a false principle, and that when we should come to prove it, this attempt to tax foreigners would recoil on our own trade and people. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down appealed to figures, and seemed to doubt the effect produced by this tax, as proved by the mass of evidence by which it was supported, confirmed as that evidence was by every representative of a coal district, who had addressed the House in the course of the present evening. He would read, however, one striking fact of great importance which could not be controverted, and which must prove to the House the inexpediency and injustice of keeping up this duty, and thereby violating every principle, and placing the coal producers on a different footing from all other producers in the country, for it should be remembered that coal was quite as much the produce of manufacture as cotton yarn or any of the other articles which were relieved last year from export duties. The directors of the Great Western Steam Ship Company stated in a document which he held in his hand that in the execution of the duties of their office they had been in the habit of exporting several hundred tons of coal annually to New York, but that the imposition of this duty made them give up that trade, and even forced them to get coals from the mines of the United States for their return voyages. The fact proved to demonstration that this was not an imaginary infliction on the trade of the country, but that it encouraged the produce of foreign coal mines, and discouraged the produce of the mines of this country, Such a state of things ought not to be allowed to continue. Next year they would not be able to discuss the question with the same advantage as at present. Foreign mines would by that time come into competition with our own; the evil would be done: it would then be impossible to retrace our steps; and to restore the trade to the condition in which it previously stood. He should vote against this tax, because he was satisfied that the evil it was producing was out of all proportion to the revenue derived from it, and the sooner an alteration should be effected the better.

I will follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman, and limit myself to a very few observations, without troubling the House with any details. We are not now discussing how we shall appropriate a surplus revenue to the reduction of taxation— we are not in a condition in which we can boast of having a clear available surplus above the expenditure of the country. It is a notorious and admitted fact, that at the present moment, notwithstanding the imposition of the income-tax, notwithstanding the increased produce of that tax, notwithstanding the willingness of the country to submit to that unusual and unpopular impost, there is still a deficit of income as compared with the expenditure of the country. The question, then, is to-night whether we shall increase that deficit by a remission of the duty which was imposed only last year upon coal. The right hon. Gentleman says, it is a duty of only 100,000l. I am afraid if you act on that principle— if, because an individual duty does not amount to 100.000l., you may disregard the amount of revenue derived from it—I am afraid, the application of such a principle will go far beyond the remission of the duty upon coal, and that you must extend the principle to the remission of many other duties which do not produce a large amount. What were the circumstances under which this duty was imposed last year? It was then stated, that this country had the advantage of the peculiar article of coal in our manufactures— that other countries imposed higher duties upon the import of coal than England— that France, that every one of the continental countries of Europe levied a considerable tax upon that article useful in their manufactures, one of your natural advantages. I then proposed a moderate duty on coal exported from this country, and, absurd as it may seem to the right hon. Gentleman, that proposal received the acquiescence of a very high authority on that side of the House. I am sorry not to see the noble Lord the Member for the city of London present, because the proposition which I made last year did receive the support of the noble Lord. [Mr. Hume: He alone on this side of the House.] No, not he alone on that side, unless the hon. Member considers the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as nobody, though I believe the noble Lord to be as a Member of great authority and influence on that side of the House. I rather think that no less than two Cabinet Ministers under the late Government— men exercising a very high and a very great influence over the opinions of the House, gave their willing assent to this tax, and their assent of course was not dictated by political motives. The noble Lord who brought forward the motion, quoted several letters, in one of which a reference was made to the decrease of the imports by the United States. What is the cause of that decrease? Why, the United States by their tariff have increased the import duty upon British coal. I rather think that at the present moment there is a duty imposed upon the import of British coal into the United States quite sufficient to prevent the export of coal from New Brunswick to the United States, and which amounts, if I am not misinformed, to 6s. per ton—to 8s. per ton I am told. A duty of 8s. per ton is imposed by the United States on that article on which we impose a duty of only 2s. when exported. Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised, that there should have been a diminution in the export to the United States, when the United States themselves have imposed a duty of not less than three or four times the amount that we have imposed as an export duty. Sir, the whole of the arguments to-night, the whole of the predictions which were made when the question was discussed last year, amounted to this— that the imposition of the duty would cause a great diminution in the export of coal. I do not think that prediction has been verified. Here is a statement of the quantity exported to foreign countries in the year 1842 as compared to the year 1841. In 1841, the number of tons ex-exported to all foreign countries was 1,848,000, whilst the number of tons exported last year was 1,999,000; showing a considerable increase. If you take the latter half of the year alone, and compare it with the preceding, there will be found a diminution. And on what account? Because, for four months notice had been given of the intention to impose the tax; and there was then an immensely increased export, for the very purpose of taking advantage of the interval, and exporting the coal free of duty. That led to an unusual, and unduly increased export of coal. In the quarter ending the 5th July— that is, the quarter before the coal duty was imposed— there was a larger export of coal than had ever been previously known. And what was the natural consequence? That since that time there had been a diminution, not a positive diminution from which you are to argue, that this tax is likely to have a permanently injurious effect on the export of coal, but in consequence of the undue stimulus given to exports in the preceding quarter there has been a corresponding depression in the last quarter. And this is the way in which the defalcation must be accounted for. The duty amounts to 112,000l. It was imposed only last year. It has only taken effect for nine months. It was imposed by a large majority of the House, not because it was a good tax in the abstract, but to make up a deficiency in the revenue. These reasons still continue. These is still a deficit. If you think the tax is in itself a bad one— so injurious, permanently injurious to the coal trade, that the advantage derived from it by the revenue does not counterbalance its evil effect, I admit, that the mere circumstance that only nine months have elapsed since the imposition of the tax ought not to be a conclusive reason why you should not, in the exercise of your judgment, consider the propriety of re- pealing it now. But have you had sufficient experience to enable you to draw any fair conclusion? I hope the House will support the Government in its attempt to maintain the public credit— that they will not set the example of repealing this tax merely because it only produces 100,000l., and because there is a formidable combination against it amongst those connected with the coal districts. When you come to consider the wool duty, those interested in the remission of that duty will, no doubt, combine together in order to procure it; and I see one of the hon. Members for Yorkshire smiling in anticipation of the course that may be adopted with respect to the wool duty. This may be the case on every distinct duty. The parties interested will combine together. We trust, however, that the majority of the House, looking to large and comprehensive considerations, to the state of the revenue, and to the necessity of maintaining the public credit, will resist the natural, and perhaps laudable attempts that may be made by interested parties to benefit their constituents by repealing particular taxes. On this ground I hope the majority will support the Government in maintaining this tax, until either by its failure, or by more convincing evidence, they are satisfied that it is in itself altogether unjustifiable.

said, that, after the speech of the right hon. Baronet, and the manner in which this motion was introduced by the noble Lord opposite, and considering the connection which he held with the district most interested in this tax, he hoped the House would permit him to address it for a short time. Although he considered, in common with many connected with the coal trade, that this motion was most ill-timed and imprudent, he should still support it. It was consistent with his duty and the opinions he held to give no vote in defence of a tax which he held to be injudicious and it was equally consistent for him to slate that the motion was at the present moment ill-timed. He was perfectly aware that the motion would be met by the argument, which the right hon. Baronet had just addressed to the House, when he called upon them to support the public credit, and that this tax, which the House had agreed to last Session, had not, up to the present period, produced sufficient for the purpose of supplying the deficit in the revenue, and it was because he foresaw that the answer would be made that the motion would be met by corresponding figures on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and that the great majority of the House would be left in doubt as to the real effect of the measure, that he felt himself justified in saying that the motion was ill-timed. He was too well acquainted with the coal trade, and the opinions of those connected with it, not to do his duty, and support the motion of the noble Lord for a repeal of this tax. It had been placed by the right hon. Baronet and the Government entirely upon the score of revenue, but he would ask the right hon. Baronet whether the revenue expected to be derived from it was not of small amount, and whether, by consenting, for the sake of revenue, to a displacement of a large amount of capital and labour, he might not injure the revenue derived through the medium of the Customs and Excise to a degree greater than any benefit that could be derived from this tax?

moved for a—

" Return of the cost of the late expedition of the Rhadamanthus steamer from Dublin to Waterford; with an account of the causes which led to, and the results, if any, which attended the expedition."

He said, that he had been led to make the motion from two considerations; one arriving from the mystery which involved the expedition and perplexed the public; the other the expediency and justice of affording the Government an opportunity of explaining and justifying its proceedings. The Government had been accussed of not being sufficiently Irish in its policy; but he must say, that in one sense (and that not a very just sense in which the term was applied) nothing could be more Irish than their conduct on the present occasion. Indeed, it might be said that they were Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores. He must also compliment them for the peculiar felicity with which they had chosen the Rhadamanthus as their organ on the present occasion. They had sent it to coerce a set of people before they knew what they had been guilty of; and this they were told, on high authority, was the peculiar characteristic of Rhadaman thus: "Castigatque auditque dolos." He punished first, and found out whether they were guilty afterwards. On the whole he hoped that the noble Secretary (Lord Eliot) would enlighten the House and the Irish people on the object and results of the expedition.

said, that he had anticipated the hon. Gentleman in his quotation about the Rhadamanthus, and he hoped that, having made this quotation and another, he would be satisfied, without pressing the motion to a division, however desirous he might be to ascertain what were the objects of the expedition.

said, that he should certainly support the motion of the hon. Gentleman. He thought the Government ought to be able to give an account of their motives and their conduct. He would apply to them the remainder of a line which had been quoted already—

said, that nothing had filled the people of Waterford with greater astonishment than the expedition in question. In fact, they had expressed their opinion in a rhyme which was current in the papers, and among the people:—

" The Rhadamanthus with a thousand men, Steam'd down to Waterford—and back again."

He supported the motion.

expressed himself as unable to give the return proposed. Perhaps a return might be made of the expenses of the expedition. But on the whole he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his motion.

said, that as the noble Lord promised him no result (and the hour being late), he would abstain from pressing it at present. But he must say that nobody could account for the proceeding of the Government except the Government itself.