seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland in his place, wished to ask a question relative to a Return recently laid upon the Table of the House, and in order that he might make his question intelligible, he must advert to what had taken place last year. He had stated, that the whole revenue of the Irish Church was 552,753l. yearly. His noble Friend (Lord Eliot) had contradicted him, and gave an estimate of the whole revenue of the Irish Church, as if made out by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, at 432,023l. It was afterwards stated by his noble Friend, that he had misstated the fact, as there was an error in his Return of 120,000l., which had been afterwards discovered, so that he (Mr. Ward's) estimate of 552,000l. was nearly correct. A Return was then ordered by the House of the actual amount of the revenue of the Irish Church. That Return had been ten months in preparation, and all it said was, that the net revenue was 160,744l., without any details. The return only referred to the Bishoprics and Benefices which had become vacant. It stated:—

"The Official Documents in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland do not enable them to afford the information required, further than with respect to the six Bishoprics which have become vacant since the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commission, the gross revenues of which amount to 29,415l. 11s. 10½d.,thenetto 26,674l. 4s. 3½d.; and with respect to the 680 Benefices that have become vacant from the time aforesaid, the gross revenues of which, amount to 196,611l. 9s. 3d. the net to 160,744l."

He wished, therefore, to ask his noble Friend, whether he could reconcile it with his conscience and his duty to say, that this was the only information which the Irish Government and the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners were able to give the House.

believed, that his hon. Friend had correctly stated what had taken place on a former occasion. He had wished to have as accurate a Return as possible. He had received a Return from one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of which he had availed himself: he had subsequently received a letter from the gentleman who had sent him the Return, stating that, owing to the deaths of two near relatives, he had not been able to pay that attention to the accuracy of the statement which he would have wished, and at the same time he fully admitted the accuracy of his hon. Friend's statement. He had since understood, that the information which had been furnished to him had been taken from the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of 1831, and that the Irish Government, or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, had no other information. He apprehended, that Parliament had no right to call upon the Bishops and Clergy to make a return of their incomes, and if they were called for, the order would probably be disregarded by a great number of the Clergy. The House had no right to call upon these gentlemen for a Return. The only mode by which they could obtain the information, was by voting an Address to the Crown, praying for the appointment of a Commission to enquire. It would be for the House to deal with that Motion, and he could not hold out any hopes that the Government would assist in it. He was very anxious, that all the information should be given, but it was not in the power of the Government, or of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to give more accurate information. If they wished for a more detailed return of the Bishoprics or the Livings, which had come under the operation of the Church Temporalities' Act, it could be given; but with respect to all Bishoprics and Livings which had not come under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' jurisdiction, neither the House nor the Government had any power to procure a return.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ward) could not be more anxious than he (Mr. Shaw) was, for a full return to be laid before the House of the revenues of the Irish Church. He had, both last Session and the present, moved for Returns with that view, and he believed the heads and authorities of the Church in Ireland were assisting in having them completed, but there were no official means for doing that. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in the Return referred to by the hon. Gentleman, did not profess to give the whole property of the Irish Church, but merely that which came immediately under their own eye, and for which alone they could be responsible, namely, the suppressed Sees, and the Benefices which had become subject to tax from having changed hands since the passing of the Church Temporalities' Act. He had suggested various sources from whence information could be obtained, and he hoped in the end, to have the information as complete as possible; but there were great difficulties of the kind alluded to by his noble Friend, from there being no Public Office or Authority, which could make the return. His great desire was to meet the exaggerated statements of the wealth of the Irish Church, by having a full and simple account of her entire revenues laid before the House and the public.

wished to know from the noble Lord, whether he had any objection to lay the letter of Mr. Irck on the Table of the House?

said, it was a private letter, and he did not see what good could be obtained by its production.

said, that from whatever cause it happened, a new light had broken in upon the noble Lord and the learned Gentleman the Recorder. The course pursued by the noble Lord, and the right hon. and learned Member for the University, after the mistake of Mr. Irck, was most strange. The learned Recorder had moved last August, for a large detailed Return of the Revenues of the Irish Church. Those Returns had never been laid before the House, and he believed that the Return of the hon. Member for Sheffield was intended to take their place. The learned Gentleman having moved for Returns, which it now turned out there were no means of ever obtaining, although they had been quoted, it was now said, in true Dogberry style—" I will give you plenty of reasons, but none upon compulsion." It was very difficult to discuss the question, if the information were withheld, and he thought there must be something wrong where there was this concealment.

as a charge had been made against him, wished to say a few words. The hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. When the Returns were ordered, he had been under the impression that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had the means of procuring the information. It turned out, that they had nothing later than the Report of the Commission of 1831. He did not believe there was any substantial difference between the revenue then, and now, and he believed, therefore, for the purpose of argument, the Return of that Commission might still be used.

Subject at an end.

said, that the right hon. Baronet had stated the other night that Lord Cottenham had given his assent to the Compensation Clauses, in the Bill relating to the Abolition of the Office of the Six Clerks. He (Lord J. Russell) had not then the views of Lord Cottenham, but he had since understood from that noble and learned Lord, that so far from having given his approbation to those Clauses, he had declined giving any opinion on the subject, considering them as money clauses.

said, if the noble Lord had intimated to him that he meant to draw the attention of the House to the matter, he would have brought down a letter which had been handed to him by the Solicitor General, and which he (Sir J. Graham) had in his hands when he made the statement. That letter was from Mr. Wainwright, the gentleman who had drawn the Bill, and he stated positively in it, that he had waited on Lord Cottenham, and especially called his attention to the Clauses giving Compensation to the parties, not only during life, but extending to a period after their death, in consideration of the custom of transfer, which had been exercised for a period of 100 years, and that Lord Cottenham made no objection whatever to those Clauses, which were identical with the provisions for abolishing the Six Clerks Office in Ireland, in the year 1836.

It was not that he made objection, but that he declined giving an opinion on the subject.

That was not the representation of Mr. Wainwright.

having alluded to the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, before the Caster recess, that it was the intention of the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in the other House, to introduce a Bill for the Regulation of Charitable Trusts, and not having seen any thing of such a Bill being brought forward, inquired whether the Government meant to introduce a Bill upon Charitable Trusts, and if so, when it would be introduced?

said, that it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to introduce a Bill on the subject.

would beg to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to the position in which some important Measures stood in the House. There now stood on the Orders, the County Courts Bill, the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, and many other important Bills; but the Poor Law Amendment Bill, most important of all, which had been brought in before so many others, where was it? The right hon. Baronet had promised to bring it on, but nothing more would, he supposed, be heard of it till after the holidays. He wanted to know when it would come on? We were now at an advanced period of the Session, with an immense mass of important business to be got through, and yet a deal of time was wasted by the abuse which had crept in of "counting out" the House when it became thin. This was a gross abuse of public time. If he were so disposed, he might have counted out the House last night, while the Premier was speaking. So, during the protracted discussion relating to Ireland, for the first three hours on each of the six nights, the House might at any time have been counted out. Some remedy for this practice might be found in making Thursday an "Order Day," leaving Tuesdays for Motions. But again, he repeated, when was the Poor Law Amendment Bill to be forwarded?

was afraid he could not set the hon. Member's mind at rest on the point of the House being counted out on " Motion" nights, for that had often occurred, but he was not aware that it was counted out on any " Order'' night. With respect to making Thursday an " Order" day, the hon. Member roust have seen from the Notices, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had given notice of a Motion to that effect, from the 3rd of June. With respect to the progress of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, he could not say more than that, it would be brought on very soon after the Whitsun holydays—the particular day he would state to the hon. Member some time in the course of next week. When it was brought in it would have precedence of the other Orders. Next to that would come the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, which he was very anxious to forward. He had hoped that he should have been able to make some progress with the County Courts Bill before the recess, but a difficulty had arisen with respect to it which he could not foresee. A very grave and important question was now pending in the other House. A Bill had been introduced there abolishing Imprisonment for Debt in execution, and the principle on which it rested had been already affirmed, the Bill having been read a second time. Now, it appeared to him to be most important, that the sense of the Commons should be taken on the principle of that Measure before they went further with the County Courts Bill, which proceeded on the opposite principle, and proposed not only to continue Imprisonment for Debt in execution, but even to extend its operation to debts of small amount. On these grounds he would propose to postpone the County Courts Bill for the other Measure, which was waiting, and would be in Committee in the other House on Thursday next.

Subject ended.

said, he did not know whether it were in the power of the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, to answer the question of which he had given him notice, with respect to the war between Buenos Ayres and Monte Video. A vast amount of British property was at slake; and on behalf of those deeply interested in that property, he put his question. He believed, he was justified in saying, that the right hon. Baronet had stated, some time since, that it was desirable that some interposition should take place on the part of the French, the British, and perhaps the Brazilian Governments, for the purpose of putting an end to the war. Since that time, the fears of British subjects had increased by the continuance of the war. It had been said by M. Vidal, the temporary President of the Republic of Monte Video, that the representative of the British Government had in 1843 said, that the French and British Go- vernments would interfere; and it had been stated by General Rosas, that he could not be answerable for the safety of the property of British subjects, or of the persons of the English. In a battle which had recently taken place, the Monte Videans, contrary to general expectation, had been victorious, but this victory had only tended to prolong the war, not to bring it to an end. He wished to ask if the right hon. Baronet could hold out any hopes of intervention on the part of the British and French Governments, for the purpose of bringing the war, now raging between Monte video and Buenos Ayres, to a termination, and opening the commerce of the River Plate?

regretted to say, the war between Monte Video and Buenos Ayres still continued. It had been attended by various fortunes, and by indecisive advantages to each side, and, looking at the hostility of the two leaders, he saw no hope of the speedy termination of a war which had been marked with the most horrible atrocities on each side, demoralising the whole country. At the same time, he was not prepared to say that there would be on the part of this country a forcible interference. In every case in which any violation of the rights of neutral powers or of the law of nations had taken place, with regard to British subjects, it was the determination of the Government to give protection to its subjects, even by recourse to force, if necessary; but so long as there was no violation of the law of nations, he was not prepared to interfere by force. He was sure that the House would see the importance of a proper course in the case. In the first place, if they had interfered, they would only obtain a temporary security for the continuance of peace; they could not hope that it would be permanent, unless they continued to keep a force in the country. They must, perhaps, even take upon themselves the responsibility of the internal Government of the two countries, and if the force were removed, they could have no guarantee of continued protection. He believed that the French Government took nearly the same view of intervention by force. All the mediation and good offices which could be given would be afforded. So complete was the concord between France and this country, to give protection by every mode consistently with the law and the usages of nations, that upon two separate occasions, offers of friendly inter- vention had been made, and bad been by one of the Powers declined. The House would see also the evil of neutral Powers of greater force than either contending Power, beginning a hostile interference to which they had no right. If England were thus to interfere in this case she would set an example to other Powers, which might be most inconvenient to this country. Other powerful states might undertake, founding their conduct on our example, to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, and this country ought to pause before it adopted such a course. He was not able, therefore, to promise anything else but continued attention, but when the rights of neutral nations were not interfered with, the parties could not be compelled by force.

admitted the justice of the right hon. Baronet's remarks as to the impropriety of direct interference between the belligerent parties, but he wished to ask if the Government had taken care to provide every practical means to secure the safety of the persons and property of British subjects in Monte Video and Buenos Ayres?

said, that there was a British naval force in the river Plate, and which would afford all practical protection to British subjects and property.

On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair, on going into Committee on the Customs Duties Bill,

said he felt it his duty to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House and the Government to one branch of the trade of the country, at which, if prompt measures were not taken by the Government to support it, a blow would be struck by which it would be utterly and completely destroyed—he meant the Cooperage Trade. He had to express his regret that in the Custom Duties Bill no alteration had taken place on the duty on staves. It was a question of much importance, and if the Government did not intimate an intention of taking it up themselves, it would be the duty of some other Member to bring forward the subject. He would not go into the details, but merely state the principal points of the subject. In consequence of the manner in which the Timber Duties had been arranged in 1842, by which a heavy duty had been left on staves imported into this country, which were the raw ma- terials for the coopers' trade, while the duty on staves imported from North America into our Colonies was entirely abrogated, the cooperage trade at home was nearly destroyed. Even manufactured casks from the United States were introduced at a duty of 7½ ad valorem into the Colonies, in consequence of which the export of casks into the Colonies from Great Britain was put an end to. And for the future the British cooper would be deprived of the possibility of competing with his American rival in the supply of the West Indian Colonies. If they were allowed to go where they chose for a supply of the raw material, he would not complain; but he did complain when our workmen, by the tax upon the raw material, were placed in a disadvantageous position with their foreign competitors. These poor men said the free-trade principle was erroneous; but he said to them that it was not the fault of the principles of free-trade, but the evil arose from those principles not being fairly carried out with regard to our colonial trade. But that was not all; he understood that not only our colonial trade of cooperage in this country was destroyed, but all our exports of cooperage to foreign countries was likewise destroyed, and that must be obvious if they looked at the fact of our coopers having to pay a duty of from 30 to 70 per cent. on the import of Baltic staves. While they paid such a duty as that, not only were they prevented from exporting casks to any foreign country, but he believed that foreigners were able to undersell the home manufacturer in the home market. While they made our coopers pay 60 to 70 per cent. ad valorem for these staves, which were necessary to their trade, foreign casks were imported into this country at a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem, and nothing but absolute ruin was impending over the trade. In London about 1,500 journeymen coopers were a short time ago employed, but now at this moment only 500 were employed. As he had said before, he was unwilling to go into details, although he thought it his duty to make this statement of leading facts; but he earnestly entreated the Government to take the subject into consideration. There was no question of revenue involved in it, for the whole duty on foreign staves did not amount to 20,000l. a year. He would ask the House and the Government whether it was right to allow these persons to be crushed under the weight of the present injudicious arrangement of duties, when they had the means of giving them fair play at once. He believed that any one who knew anything of the trade would allow that there was not a more decent, respectable, and deserving class of men than the coopers. These poor men had strong claims on the House and the Government for consideration, and there was good reason to be shown why their claims should be attended to. He was the more disposed to hope that the Government would entertain the question, when they were aware of the good effects of the reduction of the duty as it affected furniture. The whole of the export trade had left England on account of the duties which were put on the importation of furniture woods into this country. The right hon. Gentleman reduced the duty on furniture woods to almost a nominal amount. Before that reduction, furniture of foreign manufacture was imported into this country at prices so low, that our own cabinet-makers were undersold, but since the reduction of the duty, furniture had become an export trade with us. This was the effect of giving the raw material at a cheap rate to the skill and industry of the English workmen; and he hoped what had been done for the furniture-makers, would be done for the coopers. He believed it was possible to make these alterations without opening again the great questions of the Timber Duties generally. He had, however, felt it to be his duty, from the representations which had been made to him by this class of workmen, not to allow the present opportunity to go by without bringing the case forward as he had done. He hoped the Government would see that there was sufficient reason for them to give it mature consideration; and he was sure the question would be better dealt with by them than by any individual Member of Parliament.

said, that the course which the right hon. Gentleman had adopted involved very considerable difficulty in detail. The tight hon. Gentleman had put forth this claim without examination and qualification. He had made the statements which he had brought before the House, without seeming to have considered it possible that the subject had been under inquiry by others. The right hon. Gentleman assumed it as a matter of fact, that with reference to this particular class of persons, the Government had made an unjust application of the principles of free-trade. On what ground did he make that statement? The trade of the coopers, so far as the law was concerned, was in a much better condition now, than it was at the time the right hon. Gentleman was President of the Board of Trade. He would grant, that they laboured under great disadvantages; he would grant, that the whole trade in wood was under great disadvantages in this country; he would grant, that the reduction of timber duties, for which his right hon. Friend had been so much censured, as having made an improvident sacrifice of Revenue—he would grant that all that had been insufficient to place the workers in wood of this country in a condition to enable them to stand on an equality with the rest of the world —but he must state, that the coopers had received considerable relief from the Legislature. He did not, however, deny, that their present condition might not come at a future period very properly under the consideration of the House, but he was not able at that moment to go through the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made. He stated, that there was a charge of 60 or 70 per cent. on the importation of foreign staves. [Mr. Labouchere: I said from 30 to 70 per cent.] But the right hon. Gentleman afterwards got it up to 60 or 70 in a later part of his speech. He believed at present there was a very short supply of these staves from the Baltic, and considerable inconvenience arose from the high price which had been occasioned by it. He believed, that there never was a time when the prices of the cooperage trade were lower than they were at present; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find—although he (Mr. Gladstone) did not deny that these parties were labouring under great disadvantages—yet the right hon. Gentleman would find, that they were better situated at this moment for competing with the Americans in our Colonial Trade, than they were four or five years ago. He thought it would be more convenient—especially as the right hon. Gentleman had moved for information on the subject of this trade—to wait until that information was laid upon the Table. There would be no reason why the House should not act on that information, if it presented sufficient ground to warrant an alteration in the duties on staves. He did not think the removal of the duty on staves would be any very serious relief, as far as the home-trade was concerned; the real anxiety of these parties was as to the export-trade, which might be relieved by the repeal of the duty, and by a system of substitution of working in bond. A system of substitution was now under the consideration of the Government. There was this difficulty in dealing with the question of staves, that other workers in wood laboured under disadvantages nearly approaching those of the coopers; and the Government could not well separate the case of the coopers from the other workers in wood without much difficulty and some injustice. The better mode of proceeding in the case, if it could be so arranged, would be by some method of substitution, allowing the parties to work for the purpose of carrying on their export-trade. This question was under the consideration of the Government; but it was a very difficult one to deal with. In conclusion, he would again repel altogether the charge that this branch of trade had been placed in its present position by an unequal application of the principles of free-trade; and he ventured to repeat that its position was better, so far as the law was concerned, than it was three or four years ago.

did not think the Government had followed the proper course on this subject. A number of persons had presented Petitions to the House, complaining of the alterations which had been made in the Customs' Duties, especially by the Tariff of 1842, and who were in a State of great suffering and distress. As the question of the Customs' Duties was brought forward, his right hon. Friend asked, would the Government leave out of consideration the duties imposed on coopers' staves? The right hon. Gentlemen opposite might contend, and truly enough, that there had been exaggeration in the statements of the coopers; but it could not be denied, that according to the Bill he had introduced into Parliament, by taking off the duties imposed on staves admitted into the West Indian Colonies, he must have imposed a great disadvantage on our own workmen. He (Lord J. Russell) should call this an application of the principles, not of free-trade, but of monopoly and protection; for instead of these principles being applied to the benefit of the native workman against the foreigner, they were applied for the benefit of the foreigner against the native workman. These prin- ciples of monopoly were very absurd, and when so applied to the injury of the native workmen, he did not see that there was any more sense or consistency in them. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the duties on timber generally. He (Lord J. Russell), hoped, that there would be a reconsideration of that question, because he thought, that the objections which had been taken to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman did not apply so much to the amount of the reduction of the Revenue, as that it was thought to be a very imprudent thing to sacrifice that amount of Revenue without a corresponding benefit, and the introduction of so large an amount of foreign timber was objected to. He admitted, that the present Government had made a great alteration in these duties, but he thought they might have made a further alteration in the differential duties still imposed on timber, and by this means have benefited the consumer. In the course of his financial statements the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid very great stress on the proposed reduction in the duty levied on foreign coffee, and that it was proposed, to prevent deterioration, to impose an additional duty on foreign chicory. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider that imposition of duty of so much importance, that perhaps he would reserve that subject for separate consideration, and let them have a chicory-bill.

thought this question was one of very great importance, and was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had brought it forward. He had himself moved for a Return of the quantity of staves imported, and the duties received on them, in order to show the gradual decrease which had taken place in their manufacture, owing to the existing laws regarding the raw material. In London, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Bristol, the whole of the coopers'-trade was going to rack and ruin. To remedy this, he thought they ought to proceed further in the reduction of the timber duties. He had given notice last night that if nothing were done in Committee on this subject, he should bring it before the House. He had the day before moved for documents which had been laid before the Treasury, in order to have the facts before the House, and with regard to the contradictions of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), he must put him right, and the House right. He would first call the attention of the House, and of the right hon. Baronet opposite, to one of the three Petitions on this subject, which he held in his hand, presented from Glasgow, and other places. The Petitioners said, they had appealed to Her Majesty's Government without having received any relief, both last year and this. They told the House, that by the alteration which had taken place, the duty on Canadian staves, intended to be nominal, averaged from 3 to 5 per cent. on the cost of the raw material. The duty on staves imported from the Baltic, was 33 per cent., from the United States, 66 per cent. on the cost price of the raw material, whilst the duty on coopers'-work imported into Great Britain, was 25 per cent., and the same might be imported into the British Colonies free. Was it possible to have a case which more called for the intervention of Parliament? and this was a proper time for the inquiry. We were losing many of our important branches of trade; we had lost the whole of our whale-fishery, and the cooperage for the South Sea fishery, and for the trade of Ceylon. There was not now a rough stave sent out to bring out the produce of Ceylon, or from the West Indies. If this question were properly adjusted, there would not be a stave go to those places which would not be made or manufactured in this country. Ships left this country nearly empty, and got their casks made up for a mere nothing abroad. He saw the Americans heading us every day in the South Sea whale fishery. Last year 496 vessels had gone out from America in this trade; formerly we sent out twice as many vessels to this trade as they; now our number of vessels employed in this trade was reduced to one-third of theirs. It was our interference by duties which had caused this ruin to one branch of trade after another. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel) had done much good by his reduction of duties. All that he regretted was, that he had not carried on his reductions in the Timber Duties to that extent which would have secured to us the many branches of our trade which we were losing. The principle of the right hon. Baronet's Tariff ought to have been to have every article of raw material admitted duty free. Nothing stood in the way of the employment of our artisans but our own laws, and the interruptions which we gave to the employment of capital. He thought that this Customs' Duties Bill ought not to go through the House. He thought it was due to our ship-owners and commercial concerns, that every piece of timber employed in ship-building should be imported duty free; there was no other mode in which they could meet the competition of foreigners. He was prepared to prove, that if English shipwrights were placed in the same situation as foreigners, and had the raw material free, he did not fear competition even with higher wages. He believed, however, that wages in England were as low as in any part of the world, and in many branches of trade much lower. Why was it, then, that we could not maintain the superiority which we formerly had in our ships. It was merely because we passed laws by which the value of a ship was doubled in price to the English merchant as compared with the foreigner. The hon. Member for Whitby had been a ship-owner all his life, and he (Mr. Hume) would ask him whether the class of ships now built abroad were not as much superior to what they were ten years ago, as it was possible for one ship to be superior to another? He thought, therefore, there was no question more important for Her Majesty's Government to take up than this.

said, the hon. Member had talked of the advantage of the introduction of timber for ship-building duty free; but, since the day when Noah built his ark, ships had never been so cheap as they were now.

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not apprehended the subject brought forward by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), but had endeavoured to make a party question of it. It signified very little to the poor coopers, whether the duty on staves was placed on more favourable circumstances to them by the late or the present Government. All they complained of was, that they found themselves in a position in which it was impossible that they could get a livelihood; and it was under those circumstances they approached the House, hoping their situation would be taken into consideration. There was no doubt, that they were suffering greatly from the duty imposed on foreign staves; whereas the coopers of the United States were enabled to import the raw material into out West India colonies free of any duty. If any species of property more than another deserved protection, he thought it was the only patrimony of the workmen; namely, their labour. Whether relief were given by means of a total repeal of the duty, as he should advise, or whether according to the plan of substitution, which had been suggested and favourably received by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he trusted the Session would not close without some relief being afforded. He was sure, if the Government wished to relieve industry, there was no branch thereof to which relief could be better applied than that of the coopers; but he trusted the day was not far distant when a better system of Timber, Duties would be brought before the House.

believed, that the coopers universally all over the country were in a state of very great distress; they were reduced to sweep the streets; and this, he believed, was in a great degree owing to circumstances in the legislation of the country, and to which he hoped the Government would apply a remedy. He believed the free importation into the West India Islands, of staves, whilst they were burthened here with a duty—notwithstanding the workmen here had lower wages—rendered it impossible for the coopers of this country to compete against the heavy difference of duty which they had to pay upon the raw material. They had in all cases to pay a duty of 30 per cent., and in many cases a duty of 60 or 70 per cent.; and it was impossible that they could compete in an article which had to be brought from America and manufactured here, and then sent out to our Colonies, when, over and above all this expense, they had to pay so heavy a duty. He hoped his right hon. Friend would see the necessity of considering the question, which could not affect the Revenue, for the whole amount of duty was only 24,000l. The advantage which had arisen from the reduction of the duty on furniture wood he knew to be very great. A little while ago mahogany was bought at Liverpool by Germans, sent to Germany to be manufactured, and then brought back to this country and sold at less than it could be made for here. The reduction of the duty, however, had placed the cabinet-maker in a very different situation; and if the Government would pursue the same policy with reference to staves, they would restore and augment a trade of great importance. Not only were wages lower in this country than in the United States, but the English merchant and foreign merchant were willing to give more for the work of the English cooper.

could bear testimony to the distressed state of the coopers of Hull, and the great importance to get rid of the duty on foreign staves.

could mention a singular circumstance as a striking illustration of the effect of the duty on staves. A shop had recently been opened in the Strand, for the sale of lighter articles of furniture manufactured in America, out of staves imported into this country at a duty of 20 per cent., whereas the duty on the raw material, or staves, was 60 per cent.

observed, that this had been a very important conversation, and had elicited two important facts, both from his hon. Friend behind him, and the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. They acknowledged the principles of free-trade to be sound, and yet shrunk from carrying them into execution. It was because they felt the pressure of interests, grown up under their former prohibitive system, that they only proceeded to deal with a part of it. He hoped the House would not listen to the proposition to tinker with this subject, by allowing the coopers to carry on their work in bond. Let them get rid of the duties on the raw material. Although he objected to the alteration made by the right hon. Baronet in the Timber Duties, he did so on the ground that they were making a very large reduction of revenue, without giving to the consumer a corresponding benefit. If the Measure had been extended further, they would have given some advantage to the ship-builder, and the house-builder, and other consumers of timber. If this had been the case, he should not have objected to the reduction, but he did object to a great alteration in duties, which made further alterations, reductions, and improvements, most difficult, by keeping up an enormous differential duty. He hoped, that the evils of this system of differential duty would induce the House, at no distant day, to apply a simple principle to the Duty on Timber.

was not aware that this subject was to come under the attention of the House. When, however, the noble Lord opposite said, that the reduction of the Timber Duties had been productive because there had been no reduction in the price of the raw material, it should be mentioned that the reduction in the duties had been very considerable—nearly to the extent of 30s. With respect to the observation of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, as to the heavy duty on American staves, he would only observe, that the duty on Colonial staves was very low, namely, about 5 per cent., and surely they could compete with the American staves.

observed, that the duty on Colonial staves was small, but they were a very inferior commodity.

wished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman, what had been the result of the inquiry by Commission respecting the Board of Customs. He wished to know whether a Report had been made, and whether it would be laid before the House? He thought, that it was a matter of great consequence, considering the importance of the Department in question, that every imputation should be got rid of.

replied, that the inquiry into the conduct of the officers of the Board of Customs, had been referred to a noble Friend of his, and other Gentlemen had been appointed Commissioners, and they had presented a Report, which had only been in the possession of the Treasury for a short time. He had only recently read the Report, and he should lay it on the Table, with the evidence, previous to bringing the whole subject under the consideration of the House. As regarded the character and conduct of the Commissioners of Customs, the Report was perfectly satisfactory.

said, that he would take the present opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to a part of this subject which, he thought, required amendment. By the general Laws of the Customs, no prosecution could be instituted, either under the Laws of Customs or Excise, except with the assent of the Attorney General, or with the approbation of the Commissioners of the Customs. That was, no doubt, a good regulation, for the Laws of the Customs were severe, and it was only proper that they should be, to a certain extent, in the hands of some responsible party. They could rely on the Commissioners of the Customs in this respect, but if they gave to a third party a power of carrying the law into effect, they would only be giving to him the means of pestering every honest man. They had also a power of examining on oath, and any party swearing falsely before them was guilty of perjury and liable to its penalties. A case had lately occurred, from which it appeared that a person who was accused of perjury before the surveyors could not be proceeded against unless the assent of the Commissioners was obtained to the indictment. The result of this was, that if a witness should swear falsely in favour of the Revenue Department, he could not be prosecuted by the other party; but if he should swear wrongfully, and against the Revenue, then the Customs might prosecute him, without scruple. He did not believe such a restriction was ever contemplated when the law was framed, and he thought it ought to be so far altered, as that each party might have the power to prosecute a witness for perjury.

said, that in the case alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, a party had given evidence before the Surveyor General, with respect to a variety of forgeries, and also with respect to a conversation which had taken place between himself and other parties, which conversation indicated that the whole had been guilty of fraud. At the same time, the Commissioners of Customs, having detected other parties in the commission of fraud, thought it likely that the individual who had given evidence before the Surveyor would be able to give evidence against these parties at their trial, when proceedings were instituted against the party for having given incorrect evidence as to the conversation between the other parties. Two of these persons were found guilty of the offence charged against them—one by his own confession, and the other from evidence of conversations which he had held, but which evidence was independent of that of the party in question. Reflections, however, were attempted to be cast on the party giving evidence; and the Government, believing that the party acccused of perjury had given evidence worthy of credit, had thought it their duty to direct that he should be defended by the Law Officers of the Crown. A question was then raised as to the construction of the Clause referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was deemed doubtful whether, as the law stood, proceedings could be instituted against this person for perjury, unless with the consent of the Commissioners of Customs, or the Law Officers of the Crown. The late Attorney General and other persons were consulted on behalf of the Crown, and it appeared to them that the point was one which ought not to be waived. The Court of Queen's Bench was then called upon to quash the proceedings, but the Court did not accede to the proposal; and the late Attorney General, having intimated to the other party that he could not give his consent unless they agreed to argue the point on demurrer, the question still remained undecided.

said, that with reference to a Petition, which had that day been presented, by the hon. Member for London, from certain merchants in that city, connected with the Ceylon coffee-trade, he trusted, that the Government would give some further explanation upon the subject of the coffee regulations. Merchants, with a large stock of our own coffee in their warehouses, could never have anticipated, after the denunciations made by the Government, against all sugar grown by the slave-labour of Brazil, that they would have admitted at a reduced duty, coffee, alike the produce of slave-labour. This was an inconsistency that could not be reasonably expected, and which involved very great inconvenience and injury to a large class of traders.

said, he would speak upon the point to which the hon. Member had referred, after the hon. Member for Dumfries had addressed the Committee. He moved that the duty on coffee, of and from foreign countries, be 6d. per lb.,

intended to propose that the differential duty on foreign coffee should be reduced from 6d. to 4d., for, he was of opinion that the duty on foreign and colonial coffee ought to be equalised. He admitted that by such a Motion he aimed a blow at differential duties. He was the enemy of such duties, for they were unsound in principle, and he was satisfied they would not long continue. His views with regard to those differential duties were supported by the very best authorities, and if they looked to the last published statement of Mr. Porter of the Board of Trade, on that subject, they would see that he concurred in those views, for he said, in that statement, that it did not require any peculiar spirit of prophecy to see, that with respect to the article of coffee, there would be ere long the only sound system of legislation on the subject, by the establishment of an uniform duty, which would advance the interests of the great body of the consumers. He respected that opinion, and he believed it to be sound, and that it was a principle to which this House and the country would eventually come. He knew it would be said, that the effect of his proposition, if carried, would be to diminish the revenue: but he did not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would attempt to show, that there would, in such a reduction of the differential duties, be any risk of a serious reduction of the revenue. All previous experience showed, that with respect to coffee particularly, the reduction of duties had always had the effect of increasing the revenue, by increasing to a vast extent the consumption of coffee. Mr. Pitt was the first to make the experiment of reducing the duty on coffee; and the effect of the first reduction was to increase the consumption of coffee threefold. Indeed, he (Mr. Ewart), believed it was proved that the greater the reduction of duty on coffee, the greater the amount of duty obtained from that article of consumption. In 1829, there was a Return laid before the House of the various reductions in the duty on coffee since 1789, which would show the effect on the revenue of that reduction. In 1807, the duty was 1s. 7d. per lb., and in 1808, that was reduced to 7d. per lb., the result of the reduction was, an enormous increase in the quantity of coffee consumed; before the reduction, the quantity consumed annually was 1,100,000 lbs., and that was shortly afterwards increased to 9,000,0001bs. annually. Before the reduction of duty, the revenue produced was 150,000l. whilst it immediately after the reduction, namely, in 1809, increased to 246,000l. Now, in this case it was evident that in addition to the great advantage which was conferred on the public, there was a corresponding increase in the revenue, and it would be found by an investigation, that as regarded the article of coffee in this country, the reduction of duty always greatly increased the consumption, and consequently increased the amounnt of revenue thus derived. In 1801, the duty was so high, that the use of coffee was almost unknown, for it appeared that the consumption was only one ounce to every individual, whilst now the consumption was about twenty ounces to every individual — having increased to seventeen ounces in 1841. As the revenue had increased with the reduction of the duty and the increased power of consumption, and as that was the invariable result of such a reduction, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would abolish this discriminating duty, which was not only oppressive to the consumer, but had not the recommendation of increasing the revenue, nor was it calculated to eventually benefit the Colonial grower of coffee; for whilst it created a temporary prosperity for the Colonial coffee-growers, it rested on a false basis which must eventually give way under them. The Americans had adopted a better system than we had with respect to tea, and coffee, and sugar, but particularly with regard to tea and coffee. They had no duty whatsoever upon coffee. We could not, perhaps, afford to go so far as they did in the way of reduction of duties, but it would be extremely advantageous to avail ourselves of the lesson which they had given in the wise and enlightened course they had adopted. By this reduction of duties on coffee, we should evince to Brazil and the other coffee-growing countries our desire to allow a fair interchange between them and this country and thus confer a corresponding advantage on our manufacturers. It was, therefore, a question of great importance, not only as regarded the advantage of the consumers of coffee in this country, but it was of the greatest importance with regard to the manufacturers of this country, many of whose customers belonged to the coffee-growing countries. He therefore thought they had a right to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to a considerable reduction of duty on this article. It should be recollected, that by maintaining those duties they maintained a burthen upon the consumer, which was infinitely greater in comparison than the gain to the revenue, by keeping up the Colonial article to meet the foreign. There was another view of the case, which was of very great importance, and deserv- ing of great attention. By reducing the price of coffee in such a manner as to place it more within the reach of all persons than at present, they would give the population of this country a useful, and, if he might use the expression, a most sober stimulant, and the result of that would necessarily be an improvement in the habits of the people. It was acknowledged, that a great improvement in this respect had taken place; and it was stated before a Committee on Import Duties, that the number of establishments for the sale of coffee had enormously increased since 1811. In 1811 there was only one house solely for the sale of coffee in London, whilst such had been the increase in the consumption of that article, and the change in that respect in the habits of the people, that there are now nearly 2,000 coffee-houses in London. That was, it must be admitted, a very great change, and it evinced a vast improvement, not only as regarded the habits of temperance alone; for the increase in the number of those houses argued an advance in the intellectual condition of the people. He was altogether opposed to those differential duties, and he thought, that in particular with respect to the article of coffee, they ought to put an end to a system which was unsound in principle, bad in effect, and which would not stand the test of public opinion or of close investigation. He trusted the House would reflect upon the wisdom of the course which the Americans had adopted with respect to coffee, and that, seeing all the advantages likely to arise from a reduction of the duty on foreign coffee, they would agree to his proposition. It was with a view to securing those advantages that he proposed the duty should be reduced from 6d. to 4d. on coffee. There was another article which entered largely into the consumption of the people of this country, namely, cocoa, and it was one which had greatly increased in consumption since the reduction of duty; on that article it was his intention to propose that differential duty should be reduced. In 1831 its consumption was only 500,0001bs.; in 1831 the duty was reduced from 6d. to 2d., and the increase was such that in 1842, it was 2,000,0001bs.; in 1842 there was a further reduction of the duty, that on foreign cocoa being reduced to 4d., and that on colonial cocoa to 1d. per pound., and the consequence was, that in 1843 the consumption of cocoa was 2,847,000 lbs,; so that the reduction of duty on this, as well as on coffee, increased the consumption very greatly. He proposed, that in order to equalise the duty on foreign and colonial coffee, the duty should be 4d. per lb. upon all coffee.

thought Government had some reason to complain of the tone of the hon. Gentleman's observations. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had submitted a proposition to reduce the differential duty that at present existed between foreign and colonial coffee and cocoa, whereas the speech of the hon. Member seemed really as if it were directed against some one proposing a new or increased differential duty. But after the opinions expressed by the hon. Member, Government were justly entitled rather to praise far going in the direction which the hon. Member thought the right one, than for anything in the shape of censure. The hon. Member seemed at variance with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent(Mr. Ricardo), near him, the burthen of whose speech was to the effect, that Government were inflicting an injury on the colonial Coffee of Ceylon, and that the merchant and grower of Ceylon would be injured by the reduction proposed to be made in the duty on the foreign article. If the hon. Member's complaint pointed at a grievance, it was a grievance attributable to the reduction of the differential duty on which it was affirmed the Ceylon producer had a fair right to calculate. If, therefore, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent was right, if he maintained that redress should be given, that redress he should seek not by voting with the hon. Member for Dumfries, but by proposing that the duty on foreign coffee should not undergo a reduction. Perhaps, however, these two hon. Gentlemen, differing from Government on opposite points, might combine together in resisting the measure proposed. The speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, confirmed him in the view which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had already taken. The hon. Member said, "I want no drawback." [Mr. Ricardo: I did not present the Petition you allude to.] But the hon. Member read it, and commented on the hardships which the parties from whom it proceeded were undergoing. The hon. Member de- clined the plan of a drawback, and therefore left no remedy, except, that to be derived from not altering the discriminating duty that at present existed between Ceylon coffee and coffee the produce of foreign countries." The whole question of differential duties was not at present brought under the consideration of the House. That question had been argued at length two years ago, when the new Tariff was before Parliament. The Tariff, as then settled, did provide for differential duties in favour of our Colonies as against foreigners. And for the reason that his right hon. Friend would not interfere with the 5 per cent. duty while the general principle remained unbroken, he objected to the abolition of the differential duty on two or three articles, unless Parliament was prepared to go the whole length of general abolition on these duties. The hon. Member for Dumfries was prepared to go all that length. But his view was different. He considered, that the Colonies were as much entitled to protection against foreigners as were our fellow-subjects in these Kingdoms to protection against articles of foreign produce, the free introduction of which might operate to their prejudice. Would any man affirm, that if we adopted a system of revenue which subjected Colonial produce to heavy taxation, we were not bound to protect their produce from any ruinous consequences of that taxation by making some difference in the duty between foreign commodities and those commodities of Colonial produce, which were it not for the taxation imposed on them, could be produced as cheaply as the foreigner could produce them? The Colonies, though removed to some distance from the seat of Empire, were surely perfectly entitled to consideration by the Legislature—perhaps, if possible, to consideration more tender and favourable than that which Parliament would regard any one place at home; for the Colonies had no particular representatives by whom to communicate, to make known their interests, and urge their claims on Parliament. But the hon. Member for Dumfries, in taking up the question of duties, had advised them to take a lesson in this respect from America, to look at the example of the United States with respect to protective duties. [Mr. Ewart: I did not say that.] If the hon. Gentleman, when he eulogised the wisdom of America, and called on the House to imitate her example with respect to future duties. [Mr. Ewart: No, no.] He could understand well why the hon. Member, with the opinions he avowed, should object to the diminution of differential duty proposed by Government. But if the hon. Gentleman would look through the Tariff of that wise counry, which regulated all Tariffs grounded on the view of protection to the produce of its citizens—if the hon. Member looked over the Tariffof that wise country, he would find that there was no Tariff more stringently protective—on some articles to an extravagant—on all to a great degree, affording protection to American produce and manufactures—that there is no Tariff containing protective provisions more jealously stringent than that which the hon. Member recommended to their consideration as the one most—[Mr. Ewart: I never said a word about imitating the American Tariff. I merely said that in that single respect, which was specified, America was deserving of imitation. On Tea and Coffee, the articles in question, she has reduced the duty.] And for the best of all reasons. Because she grows neither coffee nor tea, and has no producing interest in these articles to protect. But in every article which she grew or produced within her territories, the country which the hon. Gentleman had pointed out as the paragon of wisdom on the subject of protecting duties, imposed duties almost unparalleled in magnitude. Was it not notorious that neither America, nor any dependency of hers, produced coffee or tea? So that to think of comparing her course upon these two articles with that of a country in whose dominions they were produced, had really, he must say, very little reference to the subject immediately before the House. The question they had to consider was, whether the differential duty on coffee now proposed by Government was in any degree extravagant, or more than was necessary to give our Colonial producers that fair advantage over foreigners to which, as subjects of the Empire, they had a just claim. The hon. Member (Mr. Ricardo) complained that they made the proposed resolution in the existing protecting duty without giving the least notice. Now the hon. Member, whom he did not suspect of intentional misrepresentation, probably made that statement on the faith of the Petition, which the hon. Member had held in his hand, or on a statement of parties who had not access to the means of information as to what took place in that House. The hon. Member could not have recollected what had taken place on former occasions, or he would not have given his sanction to such a statement as this. But the hon. Member ought surely to be aware that in the year 1841, when the Tariff was under consideration, the extent of protection to Colonial coffee was an especial subject of discussion. The noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, made a proposition for the reduction of duties, which, however, did not go to the extent of reduction now proposed, and, therefore, as it fell short of the improvement at present introduced by Government on this particular article, afforded the hon. Gentleman another ground for complimenting him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on the superiority of his knowledge of political economy to that of the noble Lord. It was plainly stated in the course of the debate in 1841, that the amount of differential duty on coffee was not that which, in the opinion of the Government, the Colonies were entitled to receive as a protection against the foreigner, and that the amount and extent of the existing differential duty were only to be defended on the ground, that at the moment in question negotiations were pending with Brazil, and the question of coffee duties might form an element in these negotiations. The House would also remember, that when he announced, some evenings since his intention to propose these reductions, he stated distinctly that the negotiations with Brazil having terminated, the ground of the defence made by Government for maintaining that large differential duty was removed, and that there was no longer any reason for continuing a duty which afforded more than sufficient for the purpose of fair protection. The hon. Member for Dumfries had adverted to the advantages that in the hon. Member's opinion would accrue from a still greater reduction, and had rejected the arguments which, in all questions of reducing duty, were derived from the great increase of revenue that followed upon the reduction of the duty from 1s. 7d. to 6d. And the hon. Member seemed seriously to anticipate that by a further reduction of 1d. or 2d. in the duty on coffee, the House might expect to obtain an advantage analogous to that which had been experienced on pre- vious occasions. But he (Mr. Ewart), when he held out the prospect that further reductions would enlarge and increase the revenue, made statements that answered his own argument. In mentioning the enormously increased revenue and consumption that had followed the reduction of 1801, the hon. Gentleman told them, that coffee had been previously scarcely known beyond the higher orders of society, and that it was a luxury even to them, and that the reduction of duty bringing the article within the range of general use, gave rise to the great increase in the revenue. Now, in that last mentioned circumstance they would find the real reason of the augmentation that resulted —not through the means of a reduction in the duty to a certain small amount, but by transferring and extending, from a limited class of consumers to the whole community, an article the consumption of which had been previously extremely limited. Hon. Gentlemen would very much deceive themselves, now that coffee had become an article of general consumption, if they anticipated anything like the results originally obtained, from extending the use of it from the higher to the general, and even the lower grades of the community. But the main point upon which he had risen to address the House was as to the propriety of maintaining any differential duty as a protection to the produce of the Colonies. He would not repeat what he had already said upon that question. He did think, that if any one attended to the great national interests embarked in the Colonies—their strong claims to the consideration and support of this country—the great amount of real benefit we derived from them, so much more than commensurate to any expense we might be put to by differential protecting duties—looking at all these circumstances, no one, he believed, unless prepared altogether to abandon the whole scope and foundation of the system, and the principles by which our Colonial policy had hitherto been guided—by which the produce of the industry of our own provinces was distinguished from that of foreign countries, would be willing to go the length now advocated by the hon. Member for Dumfries. And those who thought that differential duties should be kept within the strict limit of fair Colonial protection, would not object to the proposition to reduce the amount of protection one-half—a proposal whose operation would give substantial protection, and yet have a direct tendency to reduce the price to the consumer.

observed, it should not be lost sight of, that the Colonists had lost, by the Reform Bill, that virtual representation which previously they had possessed, and that now they were not less really than nominally unrepresented. It was important, that they should not then consider themselves treated as aliens. And when it was remembered, that the inevitable and inherent incident of the Colonial state, was to receive most of its ruling authorities from natives of the mother country, it was desirable the Colonists should see, in the extension to them of certain material commercial advantages, some evidences of a friendly and fellow-feeling towards them, and of a disposition to treat them more favourably than foreigners. Otherwise, discontent would be originated, detrimental to our best interests, and more than counterbalancing the comparatively insignificant benefits derived from the reductions desired by those opposed to the differential duties. Nor should the great maxim of England's immortal antagonist, Napoleon, be ever forgotten, that Colonies were the wings on which Empires soared to power.

The Committee divided on the question, that the duty be 4d.—Ayes 28; Noes 39: Majority 11.

Main question again put.

wished to know, by what process the exact scale of differential duties was ascertained, and he wanted the right hon. Gentleman to give a clear explanation of it. Some explanations had been hinted to him, but he did not believe that they were the real explanations, namely, that the amount of protection to particular interests was measured by the degree of power and influence which those interests had in that House. This was what had been told him, but he was not credulous enough to believe all he was told. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for some process of reasoning in arriving at the amount; but he perceived that cocoa, which, no doubt, was a weak interest in that House, had a protection of 1d. per pound; coffee, which was stronger, was protected to the amount of 2d.; and sugar, which was stronger than either, had a totally different kind of protection. He knew that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would indignantly repudiate the idea of a strong Government giving way to influences of that description in the House of Com- mons, and he hoped a clear explanation would be given, of the process of reasoning by which the Government arrived at the different amounts of duties. The object was a serious one, and the Government ought to be prepared to give good reasons for the course they pursued, as they were now about to collect a private revenue, as well as a public one. His hon. Friend had chosen the proper time to bring forward his protest, for fear it should be understood that this was to be a final measure, or that there was not much more left to be done. He congratulated the Government on the advances which they had made towards free-trade, but every step was only an instalment. These differential duties must all be abolished; and he hoped that those who were interested in cocoa, coffee, and sugar, would join free-trade and the League against the giant monopoly, Corn.

had heard of great curiosities, in the way of calculating machines, but he had never yet heard of any machine which could calculate differential duties. The Government, in apportioning the differential duties, applied the general principles of equity to the different interests which had grown up under particular laws. As to the difference between the 1d. duty, and 2d. duty, on cocoa and coffee, he wondered it had not occurred to the philosophic mind of the hon. Gentleman, that there was another consideration upon which the difference might be computed, without referring it to the comparative strength of different interests in that House, namely, the proportionate value of the two articles in the market.

said, if the Government would look at how much the Custom House officers took for cocoa, coffee, and sugar, the chances were it would be found that there was more levied, to satisfy the cravings of the stronger interest, and he thought it a very proper proposition, that Custom House officers should collect duties for the benefit of the Exchequer, and not, in their use of the rules of arithmetic, apply the rule of subtraction to the public, and that of addition to interested classes.

Clause agreed to.

On the Clause relating to plums preserved in sugar,

objected to the Clause, which would interfere with the enjoyments of the people.

observed, in reference to this matter, that a Committee of which the right hon. Member for Kent, the Paymaster of the Forces, had been a Member had decided that the duty upon foreign apples should not be increased; and yet, in defiance of the recommendation of that Committee, the former duty of 5 per cent. was raised to 6d. per bushel. He wished now to know from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Kent—the representative of an apple-growing county— how this had happened, when that right hon. Gentleman had been himself the Member of a Committee which had come to the resolution that the duty ought not to be increased? He thought it rather too bad, when a new Tariff had been introduced, the object of which was to lower duties, to find that on articles like this the duty should be raised, when a Committee appointed but a short time before reported against an increase of duties. He should be glad now to have any justification for the increase of the duty on apples.

remarked, that it was no great temptation to engage in the task of reducing duties, if they were to be called upon every succeeding Session to defend each of the 1,200 articles upon which a charge had been effected. As to the hon. Alderman (Mr. Humphery), it was plain he had been so encouraged by his former success upon lobster and turbot, that he wished now to have an addition in his pudding. The first course having been secured, he wished to provide for the latter portion of the feast, and it must be admitted that this was a subject on which the hon. Alderman had considerable knowledge. As to the question put by the hon. Member for Kendal, it unfortunately happened that the hon. Gentleman had not been in Parliament when the matter had been discussed. If he recollected right—but it was very difficult to bear all these matters in one's mind—Lord Melbourne had made a promise, or that which was considered tantamount to an engagement, that the duty should be increased upon apples. In 1839, it appeared from Hansard that Lord Melbourne said that he never intended to make that engagement; but the farmers had acted under the impression that he had done so. He did not say that Lord Melbourne thought it advisable that the duty should be increased; but for the purpose of facilitating the passing of the Customs' Bill, he had promised that the matter should be further investigated, and that had led to the expectation that the duty would be increased. The hon. Gentleman had not been present at the discussion. If he had, it would have saved him the trouble of putting the question; but of this he could positively assure him, that when his right hon. Friend accepted office, he made no stipulation as to apples; and there was, he affirmed, no compromise of principle on this subject, between his right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government.

observed, that there could be no doubt that Lord Melbourne had made the engagement that the subject should be reconsidered, and in consequence of that promise a Committee had been appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the subject. The Committee had inquired and reported against the increase of duty, and his noble Friend considered that his promise had been fulfilled. He believed, however, that the conversation of his noble Friend on the subject had been represented in a different way.

observed, that they were only now acting over again the debate of 1842, and this for the information of the hon. Member for Kendal.

remarked, that what had now been mentioned proved that his statement was perfectly correct. A Committee had been appointed, which reported against the increase of duty on apples. The right hon. Member for Kent was a Member of that Committee, and yet the duty had been afterwards increased.

begged pardon; but the facts were precisely these. There was some misunderstanding as to what Lord Melbourne said. That misapprehension was admitted, and a Committee was appointed. That Committee reported, not that there should be no increase to the duty, but a diminution of the duty. No opposition was then made; but he now repeated that all his noble Friends in the other House put the same construction on Lord Melbourne's words that he had put. All were of the same opinion as to what fell from Lord Melbourne at the time.

observed, that there was another article grown in the county which was represented by the right hon. the Paymaster of the Forces, and of which great care was taken in the Tariff—that was canary seed. [Cries of "question."] He admitted the subject was not before them; but when another question came under discussion, and not the interests of Kent, or Essex, or Suffolk, he trusted they would at least give to it that extraordinary care, if not that minute attention, which they had bestowed upon the interests of their respective counties.

There was still another article grown in Kent—namely, hops; and the reduction of the duty on foreign hops was five times as great as the increase of the duties on apples and canary seed.

remarked, that they were going away from the question— plums preserved in sugar. Now, there was orange peel. There was orange peel and lemon peel preserved in sugar—they had lowered the duty on them; whilst upon plums preserved in sugar they had increased the duty from 1l. 7s. 6d. to 2l. 15s. Were plums to be preserved alone in Kent? The duty on confectionery was lowered. Why did they not call plums preserved in sugar confectionery? They were so as much as orange peel or lemon peel either. He understood that plums preserved in sugar were as much confectionery as orange or lemon peel. He was quite sure that there was here something more than they saw. There was some reason for raising the duty more than 100 per cent. He believed that if the increased duty were put on, it would prevent all plums preserved in sugar from being imported.

could assure the hon. Gentleman there was nothing here to excite suspicion. A Treasury order could have made the regulation which it was now proposed to effect by law.

Clause agreed to.

Upon the Clause affecting duties on Wool being proposed,

remarked, that they had now come to a matter, which was far too important to be permitted to pass without notice. It was a vote proposing the total extinction of duty upon the raw material of that Which was the most ancient and the most extensive of their manufactures, and with respect to that vote, he trusted that he should have a cordial, and an almost unanimous concurrence of opinion. With regard to the great facts relating to this branch of trade, they had been so clearly stated, and so thoroughly sifted upon various occasions, that he should pass over many of them, and confine him- self principally to those parts which showed what was likely to be the effect produced by a reduction of duties, and that both as regarded the prosperity of the trade itself, and the sources from which it was supplied. Even upon this topic he should only say a few words, and he did so, because the idea still appeared to linger in the minds of some few persons, that these duties, which he proposed to repeal, acted as a valuable protection to the growers of British wool. He did not intend to put this argument to agriculturists of this country, that they should suffer a small deterioration in the value of the article they produced, and ought to give way to the general interest. It was not necessary for him, to take any such ground. The abolition of these duties as a distinct but then, he did not say absolutely, nor without qualification, as they affected every species of wool, would improve the price of wool; but he said, that in reference to the great mass of the wool growers of the most extensive description, it would not lower, but it would give a stimulant to the price of British-grown wool. As to Australian wool, he was not able to say so much. So far as Australian wool was used for mixture, a beneficial effect would be produced; but then, so far as it was not used for mixture, he was not able to say but the change might have a depreciating effect on the price of Australian wool. The depreciating effect could be but upon a particular description of wool, and it was altogether trifling; and whilst he admitted the claims of these distant colonies, yet, in this case they were trivial as compared with the great value of the change to the manufacturers of wool, whether they were engaged as capitalists who worked the wool, or the agriculturists who grew it. He could not speak with authority from official returns; but the prices he was now about to quote, he believed had been carefully noted. What he proposed to do was, very briefly to make a reference to a few figures, and by which he should be able to show that he did not lay down the position on which he relied without good grounds. The House was aware that previous to 1819 there was a very moderate duty upon the import of wool— about 71. 11s. per cwt. In the years 1820, 1821, and 1822 a heavy duty was in full operation. Let them now compare the light duty with the heavy duty, and see what was the effect upon the export of British manufactures, as well as upon the price of British wool. From 1816 to 1818, the value of British manufactures exported was 8,137,000l.; and during the period of three years, when the heavy duty of 6d. a pound was imposed, the value of British manufactures exported, instead of being 8,137,000l., declined to 6,014,000l., so far then, was the interest of the British manufacturer affected. And now, to show how intimately the interests of the British manufacturer and the British agriculturist were connected: In the three years of the light duty, and previous to the impost of the duty of 6d. the pound—he took the prices of three descriptions of British wool —in these three years the average price of the South-down wool, was 2s. the lb., that of the Kent wool was 1s. 5½d. the lb., and that of Highland wool, 2s. 1d., or 2s. 0½d. the lb. The prices of the three wools was 2s. 1d., 2s. and 1s. 5½d. Then, in the years 1820, 1821, and 1822, when the heavy duty was imposed, the South-down wool, which had been 2s. sunk to 1s. 3½d. the lb.; the Kentish wool, which had been 1s. 5¼d., in the previous three years, fell to 1s. 1d.; and the Highland wool, which had been 2s. 1d. sunk down to 1s. 4½d. the lb. He was thus able to show, that during the period of the low duty, there was a great export of woollen manufactured goods, and a comparatively high price for British wool; whilst in the other period whilst the manufacturer suffered, there was a depreciation of price for the grower. In 1823, the duly was reduced from 6d. to 1d. Twenty years had elapsed since that reduction; and, as an illustration of the effect, he would compare the year of the lowest with the year of the highest price. The year when British wool was lowest in price was 1829, the prices of South-down wool being 7d. a pound, and that of Kentish wool 9d. Now, it appeared also, that this year, when the price was lowest, was the year when the least foreign wool was imported. In this year, the importation of foreign wool was 21,000,000 lbs., and in every other year the importation had been greater, and in the average of years very much greater than that But there was another coincidence which he would now refer to in further illustration of this subject, and which was equally remarkable. It appeared, that in the year 1836, that year of the twenty in which the price of British wool had been the highest, the importation of foreign wool had been the largest. In 1836, the price of South-down wool had risen from 7d. to 17d., and of Kentish from 9d. to 20½d.; and instead of an importation of 21,000,000 lbs., there had been an importation of not less than 64,000,000 lbs., being, in short, the greatest importation that had occurred in any of the last twenty years; no other approaching it nearer than within 7,000,000 lbs. He thought that the conclusions which should be drawn from these statements were obvious and irresistible. He thought he had shown that, owing to the practical qualities of British and foreign wools respectively, and the advantage which resulted from mixing them, the consumption of the one promoted the consumption of the other, and that when you relieved the one from a duty, you improved the market for the other. The two articles, in fact, were not in competition at all, but one of mutual service, being used together. "It was just such a case, for instance, as if the duly on tea were reduced, when the consumption of sugar would receive an immediate stimulus, and vice versâ. At the same time, whilst the reduction of this duty promoted the consumption of the British article, it would lead to this further great advantage, that it would give our manufacturers increased facilities for competing with those of foreign countries, by enabling them to meet them in a fair open market for the purchase of their raw material. As an evidence of the light in which this change would be viewed, both at home and abroad, he would mention that he had recent accounts from Germany, in which it was stated, that the sentiments of the wool growers of that country were those of great satisfaction at our proposed reduction upon importation; that feeling on their part was more than counterbalanced by the dissatisfaction of the woollen manufacturers of Germany, who foresaw that the change would lay them open to a wider field of competition on the part of the British manufacturer.

said, that though he approved of much that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, yet he could not disguise from himself and the House, that the change now proposed was looked upon in the country as a blow to the agricultural interest, and as a step towards those principles of free trade advocated by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, but which he, and those who sat on his side of the House, concurred in deprecating. It was very difficult to come to a correct conclusion upon the true bearings of this case, from the different accounts which Returns afforded. He had moved for ample Returns, which would show the position of the British farmer in regard to this tax. As far as home consumers were concerned, he did not think that it could be shown that they would be very much benefited by taking off this tax. For if they took two pounds as the quantity of wool necessary to make a yard of cloth, the purchaser would only be benefited to the extent of 1d. in the price of it. With regard to the foreign market also, he did not think that the evidence of figures showed that the reduction of duty that had already taken place had been of any great advantage to our manufacturers. Taking the average of the four years before 1825, when the duty was 6d., and comparing it with that of the four years succeeding, when the duly was 1d., he found that the average export of woollen manufactures was 6,044,000l., and in the latter period, 5,632,636l., being a decrease of about 412,000l. At the same time that this reduction would not, as he apprehended, be of the service expected of it to the manufacturer, as he said before, the feeling in the country was very strong against it, not so much on account of the amount of the tax, as because it was apprehended that its abolition might be looked upon as a step towards the principles of Free-trade. He (Mr. Miles), however, was bound to look fairly and impartially at the question in all its bearings, and, doing so, he was to bound to say, that he considered that the reduction of duty in this case would be rather of benefit than of detriment to the home-grower. Whenever the abolition of differential duties was urged from the other side, the answer on that (the Ministerial side) was, "Let us look to our own Colonies." Why, would not the same argument answer now? Wool was the staple produce of the Australian Colonies, and the increase in the importation of it since 1831, had been most extraordinary. The importations of wool from the Australian Colonies, including Van Diemen's Land, was, in 1831, 2,493,3371bs.; and in 1843,17,483,7831bs. The only protection it had hitherto re- ceived in this country was the duty of 1d. per pound on German wool; and the remission of that duty must necessarily damage the sale of Australian wool. The remission was small in amount, but it showed which way the wind blew. He was sorry that, at a moment when the slightest alteration of duty might have the effect of creating a panic, and when the confidence of the agricultural community was beginning to revive, the opportunity should be taken to remit a duty which was deemed a protection of the agriculturists of this country and of the Australian colonies, and the abolition of which was not demanded by the manufacturing interest. He thought, also, that Her Majesty's Government might have found many other duties, the reduction on which would be much more important to the manufacturer, and at the same time not open to this objection.

was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman opposite, who was the proved and acknowledged defender of the agricultural interests in this House, give his unequivocal testimony to the fact, that the remission of this duty would be of advantage to the agriculturists themselves. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the falling-off in the exports of woollen goods before and after the reduction of the duty from 6d. to 1d.; but in so doing, he appeared to have lost sight of the fact, that a very considerable quantity was now manufactured combined with cotton. It would be found that the average export of mixed cotton and woollen goods had increased since 1838, in a proportion of nearly three to one. He rejoiced that the Government were about to take off this duty; and he did not think that any serious apprehensions need be entertained of the effect of the Measure upon the Australian Colonies.

expressed his unqualified approbation of the proposal, which would not only be of advantage to the trade of the country, but would promote a larger consumption of wools of British growth.

expressed his approbation of the Measure, and hoped that it might be taken as an evidence of a willingness, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to act upon like principles in regard to sugar and corn.

protested against his consenting to the reduction of this duty being taken as a step towards the principles of free-trade. It appeared, that the reduction of this duty would be of advantage to the manufacturer, and also to the home grower; it was, therefore, a different question to that of an article in which the agriculturist had to compete with the foreign grower.

would beg to remind the hon. Gentleman who protested against this reduction being taken as a step towards free-trade, of the wise and liberal sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had made upon that subject, upon entering office; and which he had, to some extent, carried out by practical measures. It was in vain for hon. Gentlemen opposite to deceive themselves; it was in vain, that they played the fast and loose game they had been doing occasionally upon subjects of this kind; and he protested against the notion, that all concessions of this kind were not steps towards the accomplishment of the sound principles of free-trade, which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had propounded.

explained. The article of wool, being one upon which the foreign produce did not enter into competition with the home-grower, its reduction could not be considered as a concession to principles of free-trade. The free-trade advocated by the right hon. Baronet and the Government was very different from the free-trade of the right hon. Gentleman. The principle for which the Government contended was free-trade combined with due protection to the agricultural and other interests of the country, but that was a matter altogether abandoned, in the free-trade of the party opposite.

in explanation, contended, that all these measures were so many steps in the progress of free-trade. He had never held that the principles of free-trade were to be carried into effect so abruptly as not to consider the important interests of the country with which they had to deal.

said, that the interests of the manufacturers of wool were perfectly consistent with the growers of wool, and that which was beneficial to the one was necessarily advantageous to the other. That, however, was not, he thought, the proper occasion to enter upon the battle of free-trade. To the grower he thought the proposed alteration would be of great advantage, as he would be relieved from all that uncertainty by which his transactions were now attended, and would know exactly upon what he had to depend. There could be now no tampering with the price of the article through the medium of duties, and the growers, therefore, would have to rely on their own energies, which would be found better safeguards of their interests than any protective duties. He rose, principally, to express the satisfaction of his constituents, who were, to a great extent, growers of coarse wools, at the alteration now proposed.

thought, when an important measure like that now under consideration met with general concurrence, it would be most unwise to disturb the harmony of the House by entering into a discussion upon the general question of free-trade or any other subject. At the same time, he could not shrink from the abstract principles which he had avowed on bringing forward the Tariff; and he must further be allowed to state, that the reduction of duties now proposed on wool, coffee, currants, and other articles, was a measure in precise conformity with those general abstract principles he had then announced, that was to say, it was a relaxation of restrictions on commerce effected with so much consideration, and so gradually, as not to operate unfavourably upon any existing interests. He adhered to all the principles he had professed upon this subject, and he repeated, that the Measure now before them was in precise conformity with them, and he should deprecate any departure from those principles, when they were met in so liberal and handsome a manner by those hon. Gentlemen who represented the agricultural interest. With regard to the observations of his hon. Friend, the Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles), his hon. Friend had admitted distinctly, that, upon the whole, the reduction of the duty upon foreign wool would be an absolute benefit to the agricultural interest, though he regretted that the Government had selected that particular time for making the alteration. Now, he would ask his hon. Friend, did he think the Government would have been justified, either as Legislators or Ministers of the Crown, if, feeling that it was their duty to propose a measure for removing restrictions from one of the great staple manufactures of the country, and of giving opportunities of enlarging the sphere of manufacturing industry, and increasing our exports, and believing that they could effect that object, and at the same time confer a positive benefit on the agricultural interest by encouraging the growth of British wool and possibly increasing its price, if they had neglected to do so? And he asked his hon. Friend for this admission, that they had performed their duty in securing to the agricultural interest that positive benefit, though, amongst some ignorant and prejudiced men, there might be doubts as to its effects. These were not to deprive the agriculturists of the country of an admitted positive benefit because there might be some undue apprehension and alarm as to its results.

observed, that what he had said was, that the Measure was no protection to the agricultural interest, though it was an advance towards free-trade, so far as the Australian Colonies were concerned.

believed, that the alteration proposed would be to the advantage of the agricultural interest. Whatever protection the duty might have been to that interest in former times, by impeding the import of foreign wool, it had been neutralized by the introduction of Australian wool.

Clause agreed to.

The House resumed. Bill to be reported.

said, he had given notice of a Motion which he should be sorry to bring on at a late hour of the night, when the House would be thin, without some previous intimation, as it was a Motion which should always carry with it the general concurrence of the House. The Motion was, that after Thursday, the 3rd of June, Thursdays should be devoted to the consideration of Orders of the Day instead of Notices. Looking at the advanced period of the Session, and the amount and importance of the business on the Paper— the Bank Charter Bill and others—he hoped the House would not object to the course which it had adopted in previous years in this respect. In that case, he would make the Motion at a later period of the evening.

expressed his general concurrence in the course proposed.

It was subsequently ordered, that after June 3, Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motion on Thursdays.

rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He would give a short history of the effects of the duty on marine policies. The first duty was 2s. 4d. for each policy, which was afterwards gradually increased, till, in 1795, the duty was imposed in the shape of an ad valorem duty on the premium paid, in place of a fixed duty on the policy, viz., 1s. 3d. for every 100l. insured, where the premium did not exceed 10 per cent., and 2s. 6d. for every 100l. insured, when the premium exceeded 10 per cent. This was done with the understanding that it was to be a war tax, to be repealed on the restoration of peace. This tax was doubled in 1797. The revenue raised by the tax during the war, when we had a monopoly of the trade of the world, was considerable. In 1809, it was 406,035l., but on the return of peace, the duty not having been reduced as it ought to have been, the business left us for foreign countries, and we may take Hamburgh as a proof of it. In 1814, the amount of marine insurance at Hamburgh, was only 41,791,000 marcs banco. It increased, in 1821, to 129,016,000 marcs banco; in 1831, to 181,070,000 marcs banco; and in 1841, to 272,375,000 marcs banco; with a proportionate increase in France, Holland, America, and other countries, with a simultaneous decline in this country; the duty having fallen, in twenty years after the peace, to less than one-half what it was during the war, notwithstanding the trade of the world had nearly doubled. In consequence, the duty was reduced, in 1834, on an average, about one-half, and it was calculated the revenue would lose about 100,000l. per annum. In place of which, however, it increased from 203, 182l., in 1835, to, in 1840,296,344l., when the effect of the tax began again to be felt, and the duty fell from 283,088l., in 1841, to 254,336l., in 1842; the absence of all duty on the trade in foreign countries having drawn the business still farther from this country; and, when the Return for 1843 appeared, there was little doubt it would show an additional decline. The loss of business was proved by this, that while our shipping, and our exports, and imports, had yearly increased, the amount of duty had yearly diminished. The following would be the comparative rate of duty paid under the proposed scale, on the produce from our distant Colonies, compared with similar produce from foreign countries nearer home:—

The same injustice is done in the case of British manufactures sent abroad:—

Thus the further your goods have to be carried, the higher the tax. Cotton twist to India will pay 3s. per cent., to Hamburgh, 3d. The hon. Member concluded by moving to leave out the words, " shall not exceed 30s. per cent.," in order to insert the following scale on marine insurance, viz.:— On premiums under, and not exceeding 10s., 3d.; on premiums exceeding 10s., and not exceeding 20s., 6d.; on premiums exceeding 20s., 1s.; on premiums on time-risks, not exceeding six months, 1s.; on premiums on time-risks, exceeding six months, 2s.; on mutual policies, 1s.

supported the amended scale.

could not agree to the proposition. He believed that he had carried reduction as far as he safely could; and so far as to place England, with respect to marine insurances, on a more equal ground with other countries than it had formerly enjoyed.

thought, that the more moderate scale of duty should be adopted, and he would, therefore, support the amendment.

explained.

hoped that there would soon be a reduction in the duty on fire insurance. Such a measure would be attended with great public benefit.

thought, that the tax should be made so low, as to offer the greatest possible inducement to shipowners to insure.

The Committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Schedule:—Ayes 69; Noes 22: Majority 47.

The original Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at one o'clock.