said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when it is likely the Report of the Royal Commissioners on the management of Greenwich Hospital will be laid upon the Table?

said, he was informed by his hon. Friend, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, that the Report would be ready to be laid before the Admiralty in about a week, and he hoped that within a day or two after it would be laid upon the Table.

said, he rose to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the operation of the Police Act, in reference to the imprisonment of young children for playing at games in the streets. By the provisions of the Act to which he alluded, it was enacted that all persons found playing in the streets should be sent to prison for not exceeding one month, unless they could pay a fine of not exceeding 40s. The House would be surprised to hear that under that Act, no fewer than forty-four children were sent to prison in the metropolis last year, and since the commencement of this year twenty-five had been sent to prison. He would mention particularly two or three of these cases. George Dunn, aged twelve years, was sent to gaol for five days for playing at a game called "rounders" in which the boys stood in a ring and knocked a hall from one to another. When the policeman saw them, he was hound by the Act to take them into custody. It generally happened that the smallest child of the number was the person taken and made prisoner, because the others were old enough and their legs were long enough to run away; but the little one, with the shortest legs, was captured. Another case was that of John Evans, aged twelve. He was sent to prison for seven days for playing at "tipcat." That was a game in which a short piece of stick was knocked with another stick, to throw it as far as possible. Cases of imprisonment for these offences occurred very frequently, and the prisons were really crowded with them. In almost every one of these cases the children had been guilty of no other offence than that of playing at these games; and although they might be good and honest children when they were sent to prison, they were almost sure to come out more or less contaminated by the society with which they had mixed. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might ask him to point out a remedy for this, but it would be presumptuous in him (Mr. Miller) to point out the remedy when the right hon. Gentleman himself, with all the appliances of his office, was so well able to provide against the evil. He would rather rely on the well-known humanity and intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He believed that the necessity for imprisoning children for playing games in the street was not found to exist in any other county except Middlesex, and even in Middlesex children were never imprisoned from certain quarters of the metropolis, while multitudes of the children of other quarters were sent to prison. He had ascertained from the mayor of Manchester that to the honour of that populous city, that although since 1844 it had possessed an Act giving the police magistrates of that city the same powers as were given to those of London and Middlesex, they had never found it necessary in any one case to carry these powers into effect. Nevertheless the city had a population of 400,000 or 500,000 persons, and a vast number of poor, whose children played in the streets; but if any annoyance existed, a remedy was found for it without converting honest children into thieves. He believed the games for which these children were sent to prison had been invented since the Police Act was passed; at any rate, the Act never contemplated sending children to prison for playing those games. He would impress on the right hon. Gentleman and on the House the ruinous effects, both on society and on the children themselves, of sending them to prison for such a trivial cause. It created criminals, and inverted the intention of punishment. Instead of deterring from crime, it broke the heart of the child and stamped him as a criminal for life. He was locked up and became the associate of felons, and never got rid of the stain which was thus cast upon him. In this way the prospects of the child and of the man were ruined, and society was yearly supplied with a large number of criminals. The facts which he had stated were such as he could verify, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would receive them in a fair spirit, and find some remedy for this disgrace to our criminal code.

said, he wished to say a few words in support of the remonstrances of his hon. Friend behind (Mr. Miller). He really thought there must have been some mistake as to the meaning of those provisions of the Metropolitan Police Act. There was no question upon which public opinion had been more completely agreed for the last few years than upon the impropriety of exposing children to the contaminations of a prison. This was held to be upon every ground most undesirable, and it was absoutely shocking that young children should be sent to prison and exposed to all this danger because they had carried on their little sports in the street, they having unhappily, no other place, in all probability, to resort to for the purpose. Some mode might surely be devised of checking any improper indulgence of this kind, without sending the children to prison, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman would consider the subject.

suggested that it would be a great public benefit if places were provided in large towns in which children could amuse themselves. It would conduce equally to their health, their comfort, and their morals. If the Government would set such a movement on foot he was sure that private benevolence would assist in carrying it out. He thought an impartial Committee should be appointed to consider the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the consent of the Government is likely to be given to any proposition of the Corporation of the City of London to build over the site of Smithfield Market, whether for a Dead-Meat Market or for any other purpose? In 1856 a Committee was appointed to ascertain what would be the best appropriation for the general advantage of the metropolis of so much of the site as reverted to the Crown, and the opinion of that Committee was that the existing site of Smithfield should be kept free from buildings.

said, he was anxious to put a question to the Home Secretary respecting Roman Catholic charities. There was a Bill before the House having reference to them, and at the conclusion of the last Session the House decided that the present Act, which limited them to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners should cease on the 1st of July. As time was running on perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would then, or at some other time convenient to him, inform the House what course the Government intended to recommend with respect to the subject,

said, he rose to put a question to the Secretary for War upon a subject of great importance to many persons. On Saturday last the ordinary examinations for commissions in the army were concluded, and many of the candidates, as he was informed, left town on Saturday evening. On the Monday morning, at 10 o'clock, when the candidates for supplementary examination entered the room, a letter was delivered to the examiner, who upon perusing it said he was informed that the examination paper had been previously placed in the hands of many of the candidates, and therefore he could not proceed further until he took the directions of the Commander-in-Chief. After communicating with his Royal Highness the examiner announced that all previous examinations would be cancelled. Many of the candidates, however, lived at great distance, and would be put to great expense by being compelled to return, on account of no fault of their own, but of an irregularity in a public department. He understood that this was not the first time the examination papers had got into the hands of candidates before the examination. It was notorious that upon the last occasion those papers were on sale at a house not far from that where the examinations took place, at prices varying from £2 to £5. He knew the names of the persons who were instrumental in selling these papers, and thought the term "irregularity" was too mild a term to apply to such a transaction. If it were true that the papers had been obtained, as he had heard, for some time past in that way, a great injustice had been done to some young men, and great injury to the public service, by creating a false standard of efficiency. He wished to know whether the Secretary for War would make a full investigation into the circumstances, and publish the names of the guilty parties, if they could be dealt with in no other way. He therefore wished to ask the Secretary of State for War whether due notice has been given to the Candidates for Military Commissions that the late Examinations are null and void; and, as many of the candidates have left London, and will be compelled to return from distant parts of the country at considerable expense, whether such expenses will be made good to them?

said, he would also beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that during the recent "examination for direct Commissions for the Army," it was discovered that the Examination Papers had been stolen or surreptitiously obtained from the Office of the Council of Military Education, for the purpose of being sold to Candidates for the said Examination; and whether any steps have been or will be taken for the detection and prosecution of the person or persons by whom they were so stolen or obtained?

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, are Barrack Masters Military or Civil Servants; if Civil, are they included in the 4th Section of the Superannuation Act of last year?

Sir, in answer to the questions put to me I will first of all say, with regard to the admission to the Armstrong gun factory at Woolwich, when I came into office there was no admission except by special order. But I ought to premise by saying there was no secrecy necessary to be observed, and the object of limiting the admission of strangers was not to conceal from the public that which the public already perfectly well knew—namely, how those welded guns were made, but to prevent the incursion of great numbers of persons anxious to see those guns from interrupting the work going on. At one lime, when the strictness of these admissions was relaxed, there came complaints from the foundry that the number of persons visiting the works was so great that the works and the workmen were interfered with materially. With respect to the particular instance alluded to by the gallant Gentleman (Sir Do Lacy Evans), I will shortly state the circumstances. At that time no man could be admitted without special order. I gave a special order to a person, who, though described as a foreign Prince, was in fact the son-in-law of the Queen of England—I mean Prince Frederick William of Prussia—who had seen all the other works in the public dockyards, and wished to see the Armstrong factory. Accordingly the Prince was admitted, but General Sir Richard Dacres, not having a special order, was not admitted. When I heard of that, I thought it was very improper that an officer holding the position of Sir Richard Dacres, as Commandant of the garrison at Woolwich, should not have the right of admission to the Armstrong factory. The rule that now obtains is this, that Sir Richard Dacres, as Commandant of the garrison, Colonel Bingham, as Deputy-Adjutant General of Artillery at the Horse Guards, and Colonel St. George, Chairman of the Ordnance Commission, should have the power to give orders of admission to inspect the factory to naval and military officers. It is scarcely necessary for me to add that professors of fortifications engaged in giving instruction to officers at Woolwich have always had free access to the factory. Now, with respect to the question put by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Gregory), I confess I could have satisfied him at once if he had put the question to me privately, because certainly I cannot conceive that any hesitation could have existed as to the right of those young gentlemen who had passed their examination and had returned to their homes to have their expenses repaid them if recalled for a second examination. I may as well state the facts of the case as they have come to my knowledge. They are somewhat different from those given by my hon. Friend. General Romilly, the head of the Council of Education, was present when a communication was made by one of the candidates that some of the papers had been surreptitiously obtained by the payment of money or some other means, in order to enable the candidates to get up their answers to the questions that were to be put to them on the following day. The moment that communication was made to General Romilly, he took what I think was a proper and wise course. He instantly, and without waiting for explanations from any one, proclaimed in the hall that all the examinations that had taken place in the hall up to that time were null and void; that the examination papers should be cancelled; and that a new examination should commence on the following morning. On the following day all the candidates were present, with four exceptions. There were only four absent, and one of these sent a medical certificate, so that the inconvenience was not very great. It is not right to say that this irregularity has been general; nor does it appear that it arose in the department conducting the examinations. I believe, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the paper was stolen from the printing-office of Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode. The moment the circumstance came to my knowledge I sent to Sir Richard Mayne, authorizing him to offer a reward, and left the matter in his hands. All I can say is that I trust we shall have the means of instituting a prosecution. Whether or not this practice has obtained on previous examinations I cannot say. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) says he is aware that it has, and that he is acquainted with the names of persons reported to have been concerned in these transactions. If he will have the goodness to communicate that information to Sir Richard Mayne he will do a great service to the public. Nothing can be more destructive of the confidence which the public have in these examinations than that such practices should prevail; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will spare no exertion or expense in order, if possible, to bring the guilty parties to conviction, and to put a stop to this very discreditable and mischievous practice. With respect to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), I have to say that barrackmasters are almost invariably military men, or men who have sold out. The situation, however, is not a military one, because civilians can be appointed to it. Barrack-masters, therefore, come under the Superannuation Act, but under the 7th, and not the 4th clause.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consequence of the great advantages granted to Spain by the recent alterations of our Tariff, he does not think it right to take this opportunity of representing to the Spanish Government the injustice with which British Shipping is treated by the continued refusal of that State to reciprocate with this Country in its Navigation Laws?

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to persevere in exacting, under the new Stamp Act, a Stamp Duty on every successive endorsement of Delivery Orders? The Dock Companies, and the principal wharfingers insisted upon a new stamp for every fresh indorsement; so that in the case of some articles in which there was much speculation the tax might amount to as much as 10d. or 20d. In the commonest cases it would be at least 3d., whereas the understanding of Parliament when it agreed to the measure was that it should be only a 1d. It seemed doubtful whether the Dock Companies and wharfingers were acting under positive instructions received from the Department of Inland Revenue, and he was therefore anxious to have the point cleared up?

said, he also wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of Dock Warrants or Delivery Orders being impressed with the required Stamp, it can become necessary to affix other Stamps upon their transfer from hand to hand, with or without endorsement, prior to their being acted upon?

said, he understood the Board of Inland Revenue had intimated that there was to be not only a charge of 3d. on the dock warrants, but a charge of 3d. on weigh notes also. Now, as these two documents represented the same property that would be a charge of 6d. instead of 3d. He wished therefore to know how the matter really stood.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state at the same time what course he intends pursuing that evening with respect to the Government business; and more especially whether he intends to proceed with the Committee on the Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Investment Bill, which stands on the Paper?

said, that the course which the Government would take with their business generally, for that evening, must depend on the progress of the other business. He did not, however, intend to proceed that evening with the Savings Banks Bill; and in consequence of having received from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) a representation that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to him to have the Resolution with respect to the malt duties discussed that night he would not proceed with that Resolution—the Government would not proceed with it, even if it was reached on the paper. With regard to the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), he might say that he had not heard anything on the subject of an intention to charge a threepenny stamp on the documents called weigh notes. He would, if the hon. Member permitted him, ask for particular information as to the circumstances and statistics, before he assumed that the hon. Member was correctly informed. But there were two observations which, perhaps, he might venture to make on the subject. One was, that the Government had no authority to construe the law; and any opinion they might give as to the effect of an Act of Parliament might possibly tend to mislead the public, inasmuch as it could not be an authoritative opinion, and could have no influence in a court of justice. If the intentions of the Government were asked it might be their duty to give an opinion. But with respect to the interpretation of the law, that was neither a common, nor, in point of fact, a necessary practice. In any case he would submit that this question of interpretation of necessity fell into the hands of the Revenue Department; and he thought it was the most convenient course in all cases that the interpretation should in the first instance be sought from them. With respect to the question of the stamp upon dock warrants, there clearly could be no necessity for such a stamp upon their transfer from hand to hand, either with or without an endorsement. In any case that he was aware of—he spoke generally on the subject, because he was not acquainted with the particulars of any circumstance that had arisen, but undoubtedly the intention with which the House of Commons assented to a stamp upon dock warrants was that a dock warrant should be sufficient for all purposes upon having a single stamp affixed. With respect to delivery orders the case was not precisely analogous to that of dock warrants; but he would endeavour to give an explanation at once clear and sufficient. In order to make a document liable to a stamp as a delivery order three conditions were required. The first was that the goods must be in a warehouse or other place, if on shore, where they were kept for order—he meant that if the goods were in a warehouse, or were not kept for hire, there was no question of a delivery order. The second was that the stamp only accrued upon the delivery order under the double condition of there being both a transfer and a delivery. Whenever there was a transfer of property, accompanied with what in law constituted a delivery, then there was a liability to a stamp. He apprehended that it was a possible case that the same delivery order should be so used as to require both transfer and delivery by endorsement. In that case undoubtedly it would become liable, as he believed, under the terms of and in conformity with the Act to a second stamp. But that was not the case, he thought, to which the hon. Gentleman referred; and he confessed that he was misled by the question of the hon. Gentleman, because he seemed to imply that in ordinary cases it had been the intention of the Government to exact a stamp duty upon every successive endorsement of a delivery order. Now there was no such intention; and he was not aware that the Government had taken any step whatever in that direction. If the goods represented by delivery order were transferred by endorsement without what constituted delivery in law first taking place there would be no necessity for a second stamp. As to the case of endorsement to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and a charge of another stamp, he could only say it had no sanction from any officer of the Government, and if it had occurred it could only have been through gross error. In short, the essence of the delivery orders depended on the transfer of the property in the goods, and even then not without delivery.

said, this Bill contained matter, not only affecting the Duchy of Cornwall, but important public interests. He had refrained from opposing its former stages, knowing that he should have the opportunity of doing so at that time. The Bill came before the House in a mild and inviting form—that of the limitation of suits—but hon. Members would find very important clauses in the latter part of it, which went beyond the mere limitation of actions, inasmuch as they gave powers of leasing and selling certain properties which, by the Submarine Mining Bill, had been decided to be part and parcel of the soil and territorial possessions of the Duchy. This Bill was in fact the sequel to that Act. The Submarine Mining Bill had, like the present measure, been introduced at a late hour, and it was passed in a hurry. Instead of the disputed rights relating to the shore being settled by a court of law, they were settled by collusion between the Woods and Forests and the Duchy. They were referred to Sir J. Patteson, and the object of the Submarine Mining Act was to con- firm his adjudication. By Amendments made in that Bill in "another place," rights which originally referred to mines under the shore were made applicable to the surface; and the present Bill was to enable the Duchy of Cornwall to deal with those surface rights. There was no intervening body that would act fairly between individuals and the Duchy, and if the Bill should pass in its present form, it would give the Duchy the power of enforcing claims that would interfere with valuable rights of property, both of individuals as of public bodies. Such measures as the present ought to be introduced as private Bills, in order that they might be sifted by a Select Committee. Very heavy charges had already been imposed on the public through the agency of the Bill referred to. Thus the Corporation of Truro were required to pay £1,600 for about 80 acres of mudland and bed of the tidal estuary running up to that town, to enable certain harbour improvements being completed. These would cost about £17,000, so that for every £1,000 expended, the Duchy claimed £100 for property which brought them no return, and which in reality did not belong to them. In like manner a sum of £3,500 had been charged for seventy acres of the Hamoaze tidal waters to form Keyham Docks at Devonport. These claims were quite unjustifiable, especially when it is remembered how liberally the public and Parliament had behaved to the Duchy in giving £16,000 a year in compensation for the tin-tolls; as also grants of £17,000 for the erection of the Duchy Office, and £20,000 towards fitting up Marlborough House for the Prince of Wales, though the clear income he derived from his Duchy was not less thou £40,000 a year, besides which there was more than half a million of accumulated income during his minority now invested in His Royal Highness's trustees, as shown by the accounts annually laid before Parliament. Common justice requires that this Bill should be made one of bonâ fide limitations.

said, that before proposing the Amendment, of which he had given notice, he felt it necessary to explain to the House the circumstances under which the present Bill was introduced. It was right that the Committee should know that for some years a dispute existed between the Duchy and the Crown, as to certain rights in the foreshores and estuaries of Cornwall. The subject was referred to Sir John Patteson, who gave his award in favour of the Duchy; and in 1858 the Duchy sought to confirm that award by an Act of Parliament. Many parties in Cornwall became much alarmed—inasmuch as an adverse possession of sixty years was good as against the Crown; but it was held by some that something like 500 years of adverse possession would be necessary as against the Duchy. Both the Attorney General of the Duchy and the lute Solicitor General insisted that there was no cause for alarm; but the Members for the County of Cornwall felt it necessary to persist in their opposition; and upon this a promise was made by the Duchy to bring in a Bill to place the Duchy on the same footing as the Crown. With that promise the Members were satisfied and the Bill passed. The Bill now before the House was the one introduced to redeem that pledge. With the principle of the Bill he (Mr. Kendall) found no fault. But the question was "does the Bill virtually carry out the promise made?" Certainly, as it stood, it did not carry out that promise fully, and a sixty years' adverse possession would be valueless, if any property so held had been "in charge" to the Duchy; in fact a property might descend from generation to generation, improved in its transit by large outlays, till it became a fortune to its possessor; but he might awake one morning, find that his property was "in charge," and that he was a beggar. Perhaps the House was much at a loss to understand what the words "in charge" mean. As he (Mr. Kendall) understood, it was a simple entry on the Duchy rolls, as against the property, say of 2d. per annum only; but, perhaps, never demanded from—nay, never made known to the possessor; and still that charge silently remaining on the rolls, would be good as against any adverse possession for 500 years. This blot was hit in the Assessionable Manors Act in 1844, was admitted by Sir Robert Peel and Lord Lincoln then, and to heal it, the clause now proposed to be added was introduced into that Act. The House would, he thought, agree that he might stop there; but he would go further, and say, that as regards the estuary shores of Cornwall they were included in the Bill of 1844, and this very clause passed through the Commons; but in the Lords, those who represented the in- terests of Cornwall urged the introduction of a clause which should give a power of appeal. Those who watched the Duchy interests refused, but added that the estuaries might be left out of the Bill; and they were excepted. The question as to the estuaries being now again before the House in this Bill to settle titles, there ought not to be the slightest hesitation as to the introduction of the clause. He was aware it would be said that the Bill would put the Duchy on the same footing as the Crown, according to promise, and that what was good with respect to being "in charge," as regards the Duchy, would obtain as regards the Crown. His answer was first, that we are not aware of any property being "silently" in charge as regards the Crown; but that if there were, it was the fault of parties themselves for not ascertaining the fact, as the records are open to the public. Not so the Duchy records; all was private and secret there; no man knew how he held any property in the estuaries of Cornwall. But the main point of all was this—what was the understanding apart from all technicalities? Was it not that an adverse possession of sixty years as against the Duchy should be made a valid possession? He called on the promoters of this Bill to make good that understanding and pledge, and therefore proposed to insert, after Clause 1, the following proviso:—

"Provided always that Section 72 of the said Act of the 7th and 8th year of Her Majesty shall be, and the same is hereby incorporated with this Act, and shall be read as part thereof."

If this Motion were agreed to, he should propose to add a clause to the effect that no land should be duly in "charge" to the Duke of Cornwall as long as any person should be in possession thereof adversely to the said Duke. He maintained that this was in accordance with the clear understanding come to when the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act was passed.

said, he had no doubt that this Bill technically enacted what had been promised, and that, in fact, the promise had been kept to the letter as it was given. But every one who took part in the previous discussion considered that sixty years' possession was to be bonâ fide a bar against all claims on the part of the Duchy, without any quibble or technicality. He hoped that even if the proposed clause were not agreed to that the Council for the Duchy would, upon consideration, insert some clause which would be tantamount to it, so as to give the assurance that sixty years quiet possession should be a bar to all suits on the part of the Duchy. It would relieve the minds of many and would really not injure the Duchy.

said, he concurred in the strongest manner in what the hon. Gentleman had stated to the House, and he would beg to ask what, in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, would be the probable effect of this Bill, if passed, as to the limitation of title to 60 years as respects property now in charge, or that may at any time hereafter be put in charge to the Duke of Cornwall.

said, he could not accede to the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite to add the proviso to the clause. The facts were so plain that there was no need for any argument. Reference had been made to the Act passed in 1858, called "The Cornwall Submarine Mines Act," and it was perfectly true that an understanding had been come to during the passage of that Bill through the House, between those who acted on behalf of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall and hon. Gentlemen connected with the county. He did not himself know personally what that arrangement was precisely, but looking at the probabilities it was clear that there must be some misapprehension in supposing that there was any other arrangement than that which the Bill before the Committee proposed to carry out. Previous to the passing of the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act, questions had arisen between the Crown, on the one hand, and the Duchy of Cornwall on the other, as to the property in certain mines and minerals lying between high and low-water mark, and under estuaries and tidal rivers, and the bed of the sea on the coast of Cornwall. The decision of these questions was referred, by a binding instrument on the part of the Crown and of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall properly represented, to Sir John Patteson, who decided that all mines and minerals lying between high and low-water mark, and under estuaries and tidal rivers even below low-water mark in Cornwall, were vested in His Royal Highness as part of the soil of the Duchy. But all mines and minerals below low-water mark under the open sea adjacent to that county, being no part of the soil of the Duchy, were vested in Her Majesty the Queen, in right of her Crown, even although such mines might be won by workings commenced above low-water mark, and extending below it. It was, therefore, as clear as the sun in the firmament that that award did not, in any way, affect the rights of third parties; and the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act itself, which was the result of it, distinctly specified that all other rights, titles, claims, and demands whatever, except those between the Crown and His Royal Highness, were to remain the same as previous to the passing of the Act. He was informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, upon a representation that private individuals might be prejudiced in respect of limitation and adverse claims, yielded to the representation so far as to say that there was a case for consideration, and that if the further discussion of the matter were given up during the passing of the Cornwall Submarine Mines Bill, care would be taken at an early period of the next, namely the present, Session, that a Bill should be introduced to obviate the difficulty, by putting the position of the Duchy, in respect of the limitation of time, and the possibility of gaining an adverse title, on the same footing precisely as that of the Crown. That, he contended, was done in the present Act. The Duchy was placed by it under precisely the same conditions, as regarded adverse possession, as the Crown had been put by the 9th of Geo. III., commonly known as the Nullum Tempus Act. But if the proviso now brought forward were added, it would place the proprietors, in whose interest it was suggested, in a better position than that in which they stood previous to the passing of the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act, and give them an advantage to which they had no fair claim. Having given this history of the transaction, he hoped the House would be of opinion that it would not be right to grant that which was asked. The old saying, "You should not look a gift horse in the mouth," was applicable to this matter. The Duchy made concessions to individual proprietors, and asked of them nothing in return. It might be said that this property differed from private property, but it did not differ in a legal sense; and it would not be fair to seek to attach to it a detriment to which no other property of the Crown was subjected. For these reasons, he could not advise the Committee to accede to the Amendment. With regard to property "in charge," opportunities would be given to ascertain what this was, by reference to the archives of the Duchy, which would be considered, for this purpose, as public records.

, apologizing for occupying the attention of the House for the first time, commenced by reading an extract from a letter of the Secretary to the Duchy Council, in answer to an application made to the Council by the Committee of Landowners, for leave to inspect those very records, which showed most distinctly that they could only be allowed to inspect the records, on the condition that it "should not interfere with the progress of the Bill in its present shape." Though the Crown records therefore were public, those of the Duchy were not, and the Bill would not place the Duchy on the same footing as the Crown, without the proviso which was now sought to be inserted. To show that the question was not an unimportant one to Cornish people, he stated that whilst the sea shore was 200 miles in extent, that of the estuaries was 300 miles at the least; and it would be a strange anomaly if, whilst the former was subject to the limitation given in the Assessionable Manors Act, the latter should be allowed to remain subject to the present Bill, which did not contain the same limitation. Where was the line to be drawn between the two cases of sea-shore, and estuary shore? The Committee would see that this difference must prove to be an endless source of vexatious litigation, which he (Mr. Rogers) was quite sure that the Duchy Council could not desire. Again, it was contrary to the spirit and principle of all modern legislation that the Duchy should have the power to harass owners by the retention of a right to put lands "in charge" secretly, and without notice. The Crown had been bound by an Act of limitation 200 years ago, namely, by an Act of James I., and there was no reason why the Duchy should claim to be free in any respect from limitation of action. As to the Nullum Tempus Act to which the Solicitor General referred, he would remind the Committee that at the time of passing of the Assessionable Manors Act, the Duchy Council had conceded that the provisions of the Nullum Tempus Act were not sufficient without the clause now sought for, because the law had been altered since the 9th Geo. III., by the decision in the case of Attorney General v. Lord Eardley, on this very question of the right to put in charge. If then the Duchy conceded the clause then, why should they refuse it now? Again, with reference to the probability argued on by the Solicitor General, he could say that from the very first meeting of the Cornish Committee on the subject till now such a proviso had always been regarded by them as an essential part of a Limitation Act, and be thought that the Amendment now proposed was a most reasonable one, and one which the Council of the Duchy might well allow.

observed, that if it were designed to concede a boon to the gentlemen of Cornwall it would be as well to grant one which would be gratefully accepted by the county. If this was intended as a boon it was not one which the gentlemen of Cornwall would have much to be thankful for. It had been agreed between the officers of the Duchy and the landowners of Cornwall that there should be a limitation of the rights of the Duchy to sixty years according to the provisions of the Nullum Tempus Act. When that came to be carried out, however, it was found to be worthless, as, according to the words of the Nullum Tempus Act, the limitation did not apply in cases where the manor in which the land was situate had been kept "in charge," that is, where a return was made of the proceeds of the manor, even if the return were nil. Still, even if they failed to obtain any further concession at present, he should recommend his hon. Friends to take what was offered, and look to a future Session to wipe away what he thought was a disgraceful anomaly in the Nullum Tempus Act. He trusted their clause might be conceded; but if not, he hoped the Bill would be carried through the House because it was a step in advance, though as a concession there was utterly wanting the grace which, would render the gift palatable to the recipients.

would add nothing to the statements made by other honourable Members, but would merely join with them in expressing the regret which he felt, and which he believed would be felt from one end of Cornwall to the other, at the disappointment of the hopes which the Cornish proprietors in question had certainly entertained, and which he thought that they were justified in entertaining, that this Bill would be really one for quieting titles, instead of being full of the seeds of future litigation, and would give them the bôna fide power of acquiring, by sixty years' undisturbed possession, a substantial right of ownership over property which they had inherited from their ancestors; which hopes appeared now likely to be disappointed by a technicality of law, easily misunderstood, but the probable effect of which appeared but too manifest.

said, he could not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Montague Smith), though he had stated them with very great ability. So far as he was able to form an opinion, and without entering upon the new points that had been raised, he felt bound to say that the Bill faithfully carried out the engagements entered into between the Government of the day and the gentlemen of Cornwall. It was promised that the proprietors under the Duchy should be placed in the same position as those who held under the Crown, and that was faithfully carried out in this Bill.

said the hardships pointed out as arising from the words of the Nullum Tempus Act were precisely the hardships that applied to persons holding under the Crown, and that the understanding arrived at was fairly carried out in the Bill.

observed that the landowners always understood that the Duchy would offer them a fair bonâ fide limitation without reserve, but the present limitation was expressly coupled with a reserve which destroyed their title in many cases.

complained of the conduct of "somebody" towards parties who had expended large sums of money on property, which they were now told was not their own. If that were justice, he must confess himself ignorant of its first principles. He denied that the Bill fairly carried out the agreement which had been entered into.

said, that though he did not think the Bill worth a fraction without the clause, yet as he was aware that the Government had resolved to withdraw the Bill if the clause be carried, and that there were certain parties in the county who thought that the Bill as it stood was of some small value, he could not take on himself the responsibility of risking the Bill by a division, and therefore withdrew his clause.

said, he felt it his duty to persist in taking the sense of the Committee upon the subject.

said, that pursuant to notice, he rose to move the following Resolution:—

"That in the opinion of this House, it is just and expedient that a drawback should be allowed to printers and publishers of the duty paid upon their stock of paper purchased and printed after the passing of the Bill, and remaining in sheets unbound at the time the duty is to cease, namely, on the 15th August next, subject to such rules and regulations as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may make in that behalf."

His object was to prevent any stagnation taking place in the printing and publish-trade, the effect of which would be to throw thousands of industrious men out of employment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to repeal the duty upon paper, and to give up a large revenue therefrom, and the repeal was to take effect on the 15th day of August next. The effect necessarily would be that persons engaged in trades requiring a large consumption of paper would defer their operations as far as possible, in order to obtain the advantage of the repeal of the duty. There was a large portion of the publishing trade that might be easily postponed for a few months without any serious damage to the interests of the proprietors, but with the most disastrous consequences to the large body of working printers by their being thrown out of employment during the suspension of operations. All he asked was that a drawback should be allowed to printers and publishers in order to prevent this result. The principle of a drawback had been recognized by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the wine duties, in connection with which a large and influential body of gentlemen had placed a pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman which he could not resist. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to dissent from that proposition. Well, whether that concession arose from a sense of justice, or from pressure, the right hon. Gentleman was induced to admit the principle of a drawback in the case of wines; the same principle would equally apply to those industrious men on whose behalf he (Mr. Bovill) made his present proposition. But he would carry that principle even further. In the Bill under consideration there was a drawback allowed, to stationers, paper-makers, and paste-board makers, for the very purpose of preventing, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged, the stagnation of those trades between this time and the 15th of August, when the measure really was to come into full operation. Upon what grounds, then, could the application of the same principle be withheld in respect to that portion of the trade on behalf of which he now appeared? But it might be said that with respect to the stationer, the drawback was only allowed on entire reams, half-reams remaining in stock, or on parcels that were unopened at the time of the Act coming into operation. But it could make no difference whether the paper was in reams, half reams and parcels, or in open sheets, except for identifying the paper. The cases were, except in that one point of identifying the paper, perfectly analogous. The drawback in regard to wine extended to stocks two years on hand, and that in regard to stationery might extend to stocks ten years on hand. The printing trade, it was said, was of a different character; but he maintained that the same principle applied to it in regard to the question of drawback as to the other trades to which he referred. He could not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could consistently with the principle he had already adopted, refuse the moderate drawback for which he now applied. He believed that there were not less than 8,000 working printers in the metropolis alone, engaged in the printing of standard works. To give the House an illustration of the mode in which the repeal of the duty would operate in the trade, he would take the case of Mr. Bohn, one of the largest publishers of standard works in the metropolis, who employed a great number of men in printing a series of valuable standard works, which he brought out at an extremely moderate price. The printing went on month by month, and, not being new works, they might come out either one month or another, as was thought advisable, without detriment to the publisher. If the paper duty, instead of being taken off immediately, were not to be taken off for four months, it was manifest that Mr. Bohn or any other publisher would not print his books, and would not continue the publication of them during those four months; he would defer the purchase of paper for printing till the time when the duty was repealed. It might be said the publishers would have great advantages from the repeal of the paper duty, and that these would compensate them for present loss; but it was not of the publishers he spoke. They would sustain almost no loss, for they would have the same sale for their books in four months, time as now; but the inevitable consequence would be that thousands of meritorious workmen would be thrown out of employment and deprived of the means of earning their bread. A gentleman, who knew the particulars well, had stated that not less than 10,000 persons would be thrown out of employment, and that nearly all the pressmen of London engaged in book printing would be in that situation. He was not asking for a drawback on paper that was periodically printed and circulated in the ordinary course of publication; his Motion applied to paper used in the heavy book printing. But it might, perhaps, be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition to the loss of £1,000,000 by the abolition of this duty, could not afford to lose a further amount in the shape of the drawback he now asked for. But what was the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose by this concession? It was manifest that the publishers would abstain from printing during the next four months if the drawback were refused. Consequently there would be no duty paid into the revenue on account of paper to be so used. The right hon. Gentleman could not possibly suffer any injury in a financial way by granting this drawback, inasmuch as by refusing it the revenue would not be a gainer, and the only effect would be the temporary stoppage of the publishing trade, and the throwing out of employment a vast number of honest and industrious men. But even by the Bill as it at present stood the publisher, if he pleased, might obtain the drawback if he only sent his works as far as Jersey. But that was a proceeding which would involve a little expense and trouble, and it was doubtful whether the publishers would avail themselves of it. They would rather abstain from printing these standard works altogether, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be deprived of all duty whatever from that source. As a matter of policy, then, this drawback should be allowed, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be giving up next to nothing. When he was dealing with more than a million of money, was it worth while, for a few hundreds only, to throw thousands of men in the metropolis and hundreds in the country out of employment? It might be said that there was some difficulty in ascertaining fairly the amount of paper upon which the drawback ought to be allowed; but what he proposed was, that a drawback should be allowed only upon printed sheets purchased after the passing of the Act and remaining unbound at the time it came into operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer permitted the stationers to have the drawback provided the paper was in sheets and parcels unopened. What difference in principle was there between having a drawback on parcels of paper of that description and unbound sheets of printed paper? The only difference which could exist was that which had reference to securing the identity of the paper, and he proposed to meet that difficulty by enacting that it should be subject to such rules and regulations as the Board of Inland Revenue should adopt. The Commissioners might make it incumbent on the printers and publishers to give notice of the books they intended to print, and to make a declaration, equivalent to an oath, that the printed paper on which the drawback was claimed had been printed since the passing of the Act, and was in unbound sheets. Did the right hon. Gentleman consider that such a declaration would not be a sufficient guarantee? Then he would remind him that he had no other guarantee with regard to the drawback on wine; he only had the declaration of the wine merchant that it had been purchased within two years. All he (Mr. Bovill) wished was to prevent the stagnation of trade which must necessarily arise if the drawback were not allowed, and he had shown the right hon. Gentleman that, as tar as the revenue was concerned, the loss would be exceedingly small, because if the drawback were not conceded the paper would not be printed upon, and he would not get the duty, while any difficulty attending the ascertainment of the identity of the paper might be met by the resolutions of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. He presented the case to the Government as one of simple justice, and he would appeal to many hon. Gentlemen in the House, and especially to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, to say whether the greatest distress would not arise to the printing trade if the drawback were not allowed. It would be a miserable policy to remit a million and a quarter, and to refuse to allow the claims of the printers to the remission of a few hundred pounds to save them from being thrown out of employment.

seconded the Motion, and said he could quite confirm the hon. and learned Member in his statement of the effect of refusing this drawback to the printers, who, as a class, would suffer severely. As a publisher, he (Mr. Black) should have felt great delicacy in seconding the Motion, as it might be supposed he was personally interested in it; but it was chiefly the publishers of periodicals who would be affected, because the publication of periodicals could not be stopped, yet if he were about to bring out a new edition of a standard work—say Shakspeare, for instance—he should undoubtedly wait a few weeks till the paper duty came off. Thus, in the months of June, July, and August, the greatest stagnation in the printing trade would take place. It was, therefore, a question which almost entirely affected the operative printers. There would be little or no difficulty in establishing the identity of the paper so printed on, because a specific return might be called for of the quantity which would be required for each work, and the Excise officers could ascertain easily enough that it was devoted to the purpose for which it was intended. If they could avoid by any possibility throwing a large number of persons out of work, they most undoubtedly ought to do so.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Black) had very distinctly and ingenuously stated that of all classes affected by the change, none were so exempt from the apprehension of loss as publishers. They published at a fixed price, and it lay in the very nature of their trade that they could hardly lose by the change. Would a work like Colenso's Arithmetic, on which the duty, according to the statement given the other day by Mr. Bohn, made a difference of one halfpenny in the price, that sold for 2s. on the 14th of August, be sold for 1s. 11½d. on the 16th? In point of fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman had selected the interest that, of all others, would be least affected. Any change in a Customs' duty caused some stagnation of trade; and the change of an excise duty necessarily caused it to a greater degree. The effect of an immediate repeal of a duty, and the payment of heavy sums as drawback, caused a double loss. There must always be some inconvenience, but if the advantage of a repeal of duty overbalanced the evil, the only question was, how could the Government best proceed? The principle was to give no drawback when the identity could not be ascertained. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that in the case of wine the drawback was conceded either to powerful interests or to an abstract sense of justice. It resulted from a positive compact, and the only question was as to the interpretation of that compact. The wine duties had been paid freely for many years, and the revenue had been exempted from loss in consequence of these duties. There was this great difference, too, between the wine duties and the present case, that when the reduction of the duty took effect, the holders of the stocks of wines were immediately subjected to the competing action of the cheaper article, and he believed the price of wine had fallen to the full amount of the reduction of duty. But in the price of books there was no fall. The public in this particular instance did not get the benefit of the reduction, and there was no exposure to competition as in the case of wine. The hon. and learned Gentleman called upon the House to agree to his Motion for the sake of the operative printers, but he was not prepared to say that Parliament was to give the employers a large sum of money to enable them to go on employing their workmen. The hon. and learned Gentleman was in error if he supposed that the drawback in the case of wine depended simply on the declaration of the wine merchant. There was a minute and detailed series of regulations which wine merchants were obliged to observe. Stock books were obliged to be kept all along, and every possible security was taken for the protection of the revenue. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was a precedent in the case of the stationers. But the difference was that after the 16th of August the stationers would be subjected to competition from abroad, while it was not pretended that foreign editions would be published abroad of all the books printed here. In the case of the stationers, also, there was no possibility of fraud, because the Excise label afforded an absolute security, and thus the drawback could be safely allowed. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no fear of fraud if his Motion were agreed to. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not responsible for the collection of the revenue, but those who were responsible were of a different opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that if the attempt were made to guard against fraud, it would be necessary to establish virtually an Excise survey. The excisemen must follow the printing operations, and swarm in the offices of the printers and warehouses of the publishers. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to insert a condition that the allowance of drawback should be "subject to such rules and regulations as the Commissioners of Inland revenue may make." These words were so large, that he might accept the principle of the Motion and defeat it in practice, by the rules and regulations in question. That, however, would not be a straightforward course of proceeding, and it was much more fair to say that, in consequence of the total absence of any case of suffering or hardship and the liability to fraud, which could only be prevented by minute Excise superintendence, the Government could not possibly accept the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There were many other trades employing paper as the raw material of their manufacture that had a better case than the publishers. The paper hangers and paperstainers employed their operatives too, and they had a greater claim, because they would be, after the 16th of August, exposed to a severe competition. The Excise survey would be so intolerable that, if the drawback were allowed, it must be paid wholesale upon all the paper presented. The publishers had the smallest claim upon drawback of all the persons using paper, as they were effectually shielded against competition and even temporary loss. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought the loss to the revenue would not exceed £100. Would he guarantee that? It was hardly fair to challenge him upon this point, for he should be sorry to involve him in embarrassment, but he believed the sum the hon. and learned Gentleman in such a case would have to pay if the Government acted in the spirit of his Motion, and if they avoided the restraints and superintendence he had mentioned, would be a very heavy one. For these reasons he could not possibly agree to the Motion.

said, he should move that the date at which the Bill was to come into operation be altered by the omission of the words, "15th day of August, 1860," and the insertion in their stead of "the 31st day of March, 1861." By continuing the excise duty on paper a little longer the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be enabled to clear off the£1,000,000 of Exchequer bonds, which must otherwise be postponed. The course he proposed would be consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's statements as to the propriety of discharging those bonds when they fell due. The House had been led away by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who always spoke of the paper duty as £1,000,000, whereas he found that the revenue derived last year from that source was £1,430,000, an amount which must this year have been exceeded, remembering that for the last twenty years the duty had steadily advanced at the rate of 6 percent. July was the date originally assigned for the abolition of the tax; but with a view to the convenience of the trade the time had been extended to August. The same arguments, fortified by the necessity for making some arrangements with reference to the import of foreign rags, held good in support of the further extension which he proposed.

said, he felt very much indebted to the hon. Gentleman, who had just spoken, for wishing to save his (Mr. Gladstone's) personal consistency, but he did not think that consistency was so much in danger as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. He (Mr. Gladstone) had never laid down the principle that Exchequer bonds should be paid as they became due. What he did say in 1854, when the Exchequer bonds were issued, was that they should be paid off with the proceeds of half a year's income tax, whenever it could be applied to that purpose. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that such bonds should be paid off, whenever it was possible, and that now was the time to do so; but he would venture to remind the hon. Gentleman that he (Mr. Blackburn) was a Member of a Government in 1858 at a time when the military and naval expenditure of the country was £10,000,000 less than it now was, which nevertheless found it impossible to pay off the Exchequer bonds. Yet, with Military Estimates which now stood at £30,000,000, he called on him to clear off all those liabilities. With regard to the amount of the paper duty the hon. Gentleman was in error. He had undoubtedly estimated the loss on that duty in the present year at £1,000,000; but he likewise stated that there would be a residue, which would only appear in the accounts for next year, and the hon. Gentleman was equally wrong in supposing that this residue would be half a million. The fact was that the hon. Member had mistaken the gross figures for the net produce of the paper duty, and had omitted from the calculation the amount of drawback, the cost of collection, and other items by which the amount would be considerably reduced. £100,000 a month would probably be the natural produce of the paper duty. But did the House suppose that by continuing the charge from the 15th of August till the 1st of March, a million would be raised? No, nor the half of it. If the duty had remained undisturbed, operations naturally would have gone on as usual, but the only result, in a financial point of view, which could attend the adoption by a decisive majority of a determination to repeal the tax, and the subsequent postponement of that repeal for nearly twelve months would be, that probably one-half of the proceeds of that duty would be lost. The collateral consequences of such a Motion were such as he should shrink from contemplating, and therefore, if money must be had, it would be far better to raise it by some distinct proposal, than for the House to attempt partially to retrace its steps by postponing the question for six or seven mouths. The hon. Member estimated that his Mo- tion would produce a million to the Exchequer; but according to the Estimates of the Board of Inland Revenue, the net produce which they anticipated from the paper duty during the present year was only £250,000. The House had listened to a description by one hon. and learned Gentleman of the effects which even the slightest delay in the abolition of the duty must produce in paralysis, stagnation, doubtful employment, want, and general crippling of trade. How enormously must these injurious effects be increased if they trebled the time during which this paralysis was to extend. He (Mr. Gladstone) had no doubt the hon. Member was influenced by highly laudable motives, but, financially speaking, the plan he recommended would, he believed, entirely fail.

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he would not press his Motion.

observed that the first clause of the Bill did not follow the course usual in the repeal of excise duties, of including the duty on licences to manufacture the excisable commodity. If it were the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to keep up these licences it would be desirable to discuss the policy of such a measure. When the manufacture of paper was freed from the supervision of the Excise, a tax of this nature became quite unjustifiable. He found that whenever a duty such as that on paper had been repealed, the Excise licence had been repealed also. The only exception, as far as he could ascertain, to that rule was the case of the soapboilers, who were still bound to take out a licence, although the tax on soap had been repealed. The duty on paper had been abolished, it was said, with the view of encouraging and developing trade; but this monstrous imposition would have quite a contrary effect. It might be very right to establish a check of this kind in the case of a dangerous or noxious trade, but the manufacture of paper was one which ought to be encouraged. The fact of having to pay four guineas for a licence, however, would prevent many persons from entering the trade.

said, he was unable to say that the hon. Member's statement of precedent was literally incorrect, but he could mention an instance to show that it was certainly not established as a principle of recent legislation that when an Excise duty was repealed the persons who paid it should also be relieved from the burden of annual licences. The soap trade, to which the hon. Gentleman had himself referred, was one case where the repeal of the licence did not follow the repeal of the duty, although the question was carefully considered by Parliament, and there was as much anxiety to promote the soap as the paper trade. But the case of the auctioneers afforded a still stronger instance of the same kind. When the Excise duty on auctions was repealed, so far was Sir Robert Peel and the Parliament of the day from thinking that the licences ought necessarily to be discontinued as well, that the repeal of the duty was seized as an excellent opportunity for raising a small sum in an unexceptional manner, either—for he forgot the exact course pursued—by imposing a licence duty on the trade, or greatly augmenting that which already existed. That measure was carried without opposition either in the House or from the auctioneers. Then as to the principle, he could not regard the payment of £4 4s. for a licence as a serious obstacle to the development of the paper manufacture, which must be prosecuted on a scale certainly far larger than could be by persons who would feel as a burden so trifling a charge. It was urged that the amount derived from this licence was very small—only some £1,500 or £1,600 a year at present, and not likely to rise above £3,000 or £4,000 for many years to come; but the question was, not how much this duty would yield, but whether it could be raised in an unexceptional manner. If there were no serious complaint against it, and it involved no breach of principle, the mere smallness of the amount was no reason for abandoning it, especially in the case of a class on whom the Legislature were about to confer a great boon at a heavy cost to the Exchequer. The principle of these licences on trades was a good one; and he would be ready enough to answer the hon. Member's question whether he was willing to extend the practice if it depended on his own will alone. The question of licences on trades might at any time become entitled to the serious consideration of Parliament, either on account of peculiar financial pressure, or as a commutation for other taxes; and he was not prepared to surrender those taxes of the kind which now existed. It might be true that all taxes which existed should be in perfect harmony with each other; but, although it might be proper to keep that in mind, he did not think it of itself a good reason for surrendering a duty which was raised without difficulty, complaint, or cost to the Exchequer, and which was paid by a class who, as he had said, were about to receive so considerable boon from the Government.

remarked that when Sir Robert Peel increased the licence duty charged on auctioneers, those already in the trade were delighted, because it tended to keep others out of it. There could be no reason why paper manufacturers should be subject to licence duty more than cotton-spinners or carpet manufacturers. If one species of manufacture was to be licensed, there was a strong reason why all the rest should be treated in the same way; and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been making great changes in the financial system of the country and was so much in favour of direct taxation, ought to extend the system of licensing to all trades. By what the right hon. Gentleman was now doing he would create a practical monopoly in the paper trade. The paper manufacture was already in comparatively few hands, and would become the possession of still fewer in time.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was not quite so conclusive in his arguments on this occasion as he had been on many other questions connected with his Budget. He agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Sir J. Trollope) that there was no reason whatever why the men who made paper should have to pay for a licence more than those who made calico. He believed it was better for the paper-makers that the licence should be retained and the duty abolished than that both should be retained; but there was really no reason why they should pay licence duty while those who manufactured other things were exempt. His principal objection to the duty was that it was unjust to the various classes of paper manufacturers. Those who carried on an extensive trade—the Wrigleys, Dickensons, and Cowans—paid no more than the £4 4s. which had to be paid also by those who carried on business only on a small scale, and derived from it but a scanty living. If their incomes did not exceed £250 a year, the licence would be equal to a tax of 4d. in the pound. It was not worth while, perhaps, to say much about it on one side or the other; but he thought the exceptions to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred did not afford sufficient grounds to continue the system, unless it were extended generally among traders, and that, he suspected, no Chancellor of the Exchequer would attempt until other sources of revenue had failed. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said what he had said tonight for the purpose of extending licences. He had no objection to traders paying their full share of taxation, but he thought this mode of licences very unpalatable, and very unsatisfactory. He thought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was right in the view which he took of this question. It did not seem to be a matter of much consequence. No paper manufacturer objected to the licence. At the same time it was not just in principle, and it was unfair to the small paper manufacturers.

said, that he did not think it would be fair to paper manufacturers to subject them to that charge, and at the same time to expose them to an unlimited competition with foreigners. The auctioneers to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred had no foreign competition to encounter. With respect to the manufacturers of glass, the duty on which was repealed a few years ago, they paid no licences. If free trade were to be accompanied with the imposition of licences generally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would rouse a feeling of opposition which he did not expect.

observed, that the paper-makers ought to be satisfied that they had now one tax less, while the one in question was only retained on account of revenue. The system, if adopted at all, ought to be extended to all trades; and he asked the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Trollope) how the farmers would like being subject to a licence to carry on their business. The licences of the trade to which he belonged were enormous. He paid, himself, no less than thirteen different taxes. He paid them as a maltster, as a brewer, as a dealer; the article was sold to a person who paid the tax; the publican paid another tax. In every principal town in which he had an agent he was also obliged to take out a licence, and the general effect in his case was that he paid the tax eleven or twelve times over. Thus there were thirteen different taxes in the shape of licence duties. Altogether he paid about £130,000 per annum. Let him, however, be relieved from half only of the other taxes, and he would not quarrel about the licences.

said, he must call attention to the important considerations involved in this extremely small question of £1,500 a year, which the paper-makers paid for licences. If they voted away this sum, and laid down the principle to remit all licences, they would abolish a considerable revenue. Although the system of licences might be anomalous and exceptional, they ought not to take away the money in one instance, unless they were prepared to lay down a clear principle, and carry it to a consistent end. He was much obliged to the hon. Member who had just spoken, for he had convicted the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets of a great inaccuracy. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said that uniformly, when Excise Duties were re-moved, licences were removed also; but there was an Excise duty on beer; and, though it was removed, the manufacturers of beer still paid a large sum for licences. I Knowing that the Committee was in danger of being betrayed unawares into the remission of a small sum which might afterwards involve inconvenient consequences, he entreated them to interpose, unless they were in a condition to part with a revenue of some hundreds of thousands of pounds.

said, he had mentioned that there were certain exceptions in which the system of licences was retained, although the duty on the commodity was remitted; but those exceptions depended on clear and intelligible principles. It was quite unnecessary for the Committee to be drawn into a discussion of licences to auctioneers, for the maintenance of which good reasons might be given. His simple proposition was, that when the excise upon articles having no noxious tendency was repealed, with one exception, the licence duty was removed with it. He knew that it was the interest of the paper-makers to maintain the licensing system, and he was quite astonished to hear such a financier as the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk of the revision of the paper duty as a boon to the paper-makers. It was not ranked as a boon to them, but as a boon to the public; and he was asking them to repeal the licences precisely on the same ground— namely, for the benefit of the public. Men largely engaged in the manufacture of paper, would, no doubt, like to have the licences increased to £30 or £40, because the practical effect was to exclude others from setting up in the trade. Of all systems of finance that of a heavy licensing system was the most iniquitous and the most injurious to the public; because the tendency was to keep down the small men, and leave the large manufacturers in possession of the business undisturbed. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to draw the Committee away from the true question. He only asked for the remission of the Excise licence when they removed the Excise duty. The Committee would be betrayed into nothing by assenting to it. It was a proposition which had been assented to over and over again, in the case of glass, bricks, and other commodities; and he protested against the Chancellor of the Exchequer creeping into a system which he could not avow before the country, however agreeable it might be to large manufacturers, who traded to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

explained that the limitation of quantity with respect to drawback, was fixed by this clause. The amount fixed as a minimum appeared to be reasonable, and was stated in all the communications with the trade.

said, the clause did not include "millboard," as stated in the preamble of the Act.

said, that he bought the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of this Bill (Mr. Bovill) had earned the gratitude of the House for the introduction of a measure which would have the effect of simplifying the procedure, removing the technicalities, and reducing the expense in this class of actions—but there was one point to which he wished to take exception. He thought there was no reason why a preliminary application should be made to a Judge. He therefore proposed that the second clause should be omitted altogether; and then, with some verbal Amendments in the third clause, the effect would be that the first application would be made to the Crown.

said, he was willing to assent to the suggestion.

said, the effect of the proposed measure would be to impose a duty of 1s. per load on a species of wood extensively imported into the north. It was called spars, was of an inferior description, and was principally used for mining purposes. No doubt 1s. per load was a reduction of the present duty, but in consequence of the mode in which spars were measured by the Customs the new duty would in reality amount to something like 3s. per load. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House an assurance that the duty would be charged in such a way that the importers would have to pay Is. per load only.

said, he had no difficulty in giving his hon. Friend the assurance which he asked, for it never was his intention to maintain under the new law those measurements of woods of this description which might be perfectly intelligible, but which were not equitable, and which existed under the old system of the timber duties. It was not intended, in short, to abandon the mode of measurement hitherto practised by the Customs, and the new duty would be put as nearly at 1s. for the quantity mentioned as it would be possible to do.

And as to bark, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would state his intentions.

The duty would follow the same manner, and be made more equitable.

said, that staves used by coopers for herring barrels had been excepted from duty under the old law, and he regretted to see that the right hon. Gentleman still proposed to make them no longer an exception. He thought all staves ought to be treated alike. He wished further to observe, in reference to the tea and sugar duties, which had been fixed for a year only, that the system was most inconvenient to the trade generally. If they had been taken for five years or more, it would have been far more agreeable to the trades. He hoped the House and country would long have the benefit of the services of the right hon. Gentleman in the office which he so much adorned, and then perhaps he would consider this question and bring it to a settlement.

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman seemed willing to do justice to the dealers in staves, but his morality appeared to be this, that so long as the duty was high, it was right to charge them three times too much, but now it would be low he did not intend to charge more than the proper amount. This evidently was the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman.

observed, that the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman applied to an abstract Chancellor of the Exchequer. The present did not hold himself responsible for schemes of duty devised before he was born. The exemption of staves for herring barrels was an old exemption, which probably it was thought invidious to destroy. The exemption of staves in general was introduced under the Government of Sir Robert Peel about 1842, when the cooperage trade of this country was labouring under severe competition; but, the principle of a nominal duty being now established, it was the opinion of a large portion of the trade that a uniform duty should be fixed, and so this low duty on staves was proposed and adopted by the House. He thought that there was great force in what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to the duties on tea and sugar, and he trusted that whoever might in future occupy the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer would be enabled to adopt a system which would give the commercial community a larger outlook with respect to these duties than they could have under a provisional arrangement.

said, he had a matter of great importance, affecting the colony with which he was connected, to bring under the notice of the House; but at that late hour (twenty-five minutes to twelve o'clock) he thought it would not be advisable to attempt to make the long statement he should be obliged to offer to the Committee. He therefore moved that the Chairman report progress.

said, he was quite certain that though the hour might be considered late in some countries, it was according to the usages of that House an early hour. At present there was a most favourable and satisfactory state of things for the discussion of the question, the House being in a calm and temperate mood, and having nothing to sway its judgment, and if the hon. Gentleman would proceed with the statement he had to make on the present occasion he would find it so agree able a duty that the House would doubtless frequently in future have the pleasure of listening to him at a similar hour in the evening.

observed, that he felt he had no alternative but to go on; but he assured the Committee that he never rose under circumstances of such embarrassment. He proposed to move that in page 16, line 31 of the Bill, after "sawn or split, planed or dressed," should be inserted, "except deals, battens, and boards, which shall remain at the present duty." No person reading the short line in the paragraph to which his Amendment would apply could suppose that underneath those ordinary words lay a measure of as great importance as ever was brought before the House. When he considered that the persons he represented belonged to a colony unrepresented in that House, and without any official organ in this country to make their wants known to the Government, and that he, who now rose to advocate their interests, was a stranger in this country, without any sort of interest beyond that which consisted in the feeling of all Englishmen to do right, he felt such discouragement come over him as he believed no other man had ever felt before. It was needless for him to say that British America was a forest country, and its only or main export was timber. Therefore the interests of the whole people were more or less involved in the trade; but in this country, where there were so many vast interests, if one was ruined the whole country was not thereby affected. All other interests were ably and efficiently represented in that House—the cork-cutters, paper-makers, and others, who were all for free trade for the rest of the world, but Protectionists for themselves—these were represented by men so able, that they could draw from the ranks of Freetraders some of its oldest advocates to say that they approved of the doctrine, except where their constituents were concerned. But who was there to speak for the absent men, out of sight, yet intelligent, able, enterprising, and loyal, who formed the foundation of a large empire? If he felt discouragement under these circumstances he could not derive much consolation when he considered that the present was the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the most eloquent, able, ingenious, and persuasive of men, but who, according to his own expression the other night was impervious to any argument. When he saw the majority on the opposite benches in favour of free trade and the abolition of all duties, he felt that the tide was running against him, and that it was hopeless for him to make an application to that House for assistance. Still, he would appeal from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the good honest feeling of Englishmen, who proverbially loved fair play, and who, if they could not assist, at least sympathised with the weaker party. In former days it was the policy of this country to nurture its colonies. That was the period when the Gentlemen on his side of the House were known by the well-defined and time-honoured name of Tories, and before the new sliding-scale sort of nomenclature of Conservatives—Liberal Conservatives—progressive Conservatives—came into fashion, together with a variety of other names of very little meaning and much less sense. In those good old times it was the habit of the country to rely on its Colonies, and he recollected that in his younger days the toast drank on all occasions was "Ships, colonies, and commerce." Those good old days were passed, and now it was "cotton twist and cotton yarn" instead of "colonies and commerce." In these good old days it was thought necessary to cultivate the Colonies, and, on this principle, that those who begot children were bound to protect and support them. On the same principle, a nation which planted colonies ought to support and protect them until they were able to support and protect themselves. Therefore every encouragement was given to that forest country to furnish supplies of timber to England at a period when the North of Europe, the only other place that England could get timber from, was, by the machinations of the uncle of the present Emperor of the French, closed to this country. In 1842, Sir R. Peel reduced the scale of these duties, with the view of giving the people of England the benefit of competition between North America and the North of Europe. Now, he found no fault with the principle of that proposal, but with the mode then, as now adopted, without notice and by surprise, of throwing the colonists on their backs in an instant. What was the consequence? One of the ablest men in Canada, whom he had seen within the last few days, computed the loss to that colony caused by a little clause of four or five words, just like that of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, at £3,000,000 sterling. The loss to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, his own knowledge of which was more extensive, he estimated at £2,000,000 more; making altogether £5,000,000. Other reductions took place, and now the competition had reached this point, that the trade in America, which was rather on the decrease, while the foreign tonnage and foreign importations had of late years largely increased. It had also become a sort of gambling trade. If the supply from the Baltic was not very great, there was a chance of our own colonists coming in and reaping some little profit. At other periods they barely realized the cost of production: and it was at such a time, with things in that position, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen for introducing, without notice, his scheme for equalizing these duties. The matter was one of great importance, not with respect to the few shillings a ton, but on the tenure of our colonies. He entreated the House to consider whether it was their intention to put it out of the power of those colonies to belong to them or not. He wished to warn the Government against the course they were pursuing. He could tell them, from his knowledge of the people of North America, that this measure was cutting the first strand of the cable which connected these provinces with this country. When the first step was being taken to equalize the duties on Baltic and American timber the colonists were engaged in arranging their spring exporta- tions to Liverpool. Among the rest was a person named M'Avity, the Mayor of the city of St. John's, the capital of New Brunswick. That gentleman was in this country on his private affairs, as was often the case with almost every other timber merchant in St. John's, New Brunswick; and to his astonishment he learnt from the papers that the Government proposed to abolish the differential duties on timber. Mr. M'Avity was a very respectable man, filling an office to which he had been elected by a very different class from the £6 householders who were about to receive the franchise in England, although he certainly desired to cast no disparagement on the gentlemen who composed the "Strikes" of this country. Mr. M'Avity addressed a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which there was really nothing impertinent. Private affairs, said the writer, required him to return in a few days to his native land; but he was confident the right hon. Gentleman could not be aware of the extreme injury which the new scale of duties would inflict on Her Majesty's subjects in New Brunswick, more especially on those engaged in the manufacture and exportation of deals. He also expressed his belief that he and his fellow colonists who had invested large sums of money in saw-mills and other requirements of the trade, upon the faith of the continuance of the present duties, had on that and other grounds a just claim to be heard before any change was made. In this country they could not hint a change of duties without it being instantly conveyed by post or telegraph to John O'Groat's house. And immediately up got the hon. Gentleman having the honour to represent the very fertile regions where that House stood, to make known the wants of the gentlemen of groats. But Mr. M'Avity also respectfully avowed his conviction that should the proposed change be carried out without reasonable opportunity being afforded to the interests affected to express their opinions upon it, "such a hasty proceeding would undoubtedly cause serious discontent among a people who had always been conspicuous for their attachment to the institutions of this country." Well, if there was anything improper in the tone of that letter perhaps some hon. Member would be good enough to point it out to him, for he confessed, as a poor simple-minded colonist, that he had wholly failed to discover it. Now came the right hon. Gentleman's answer, an answer he must say not exactly such as he thought it becoming in a Chancellor of the Exchequer to make. It was very haughty and very supercilious. What! a man from New Brunswick, who could not in any way influence a vote in that House—what sort of a fellow was that to approach a dignitary like a British Chancellor of the Exchequer! The man must have been dumb-founded before he got home, if he did not actually die from fright. "In your letter," said the right hon. Gentleman, "you protest as well as remonstrate." Dreadful words! One would have fancied the man must have used some terrible oaths, or discharged some extraordinary Yankee expletives, at the least. But, after all, he only "protested"—a thing which our noble Foreign Secretary has been so much blamed of late for not doing on the Savoy question. But the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have got excited by the hardihood of this gentleman in venturing to "protest and remonstrate"—horrid words!—against any change in the timber duties until the people of New Brunswick had had "an opportunity of stating their views on the subject." "Were I to examine your language critically," he proceeded, "I could not admit your title, even individually, to protest against any legislation which Parliament may think it right to adopt for the equalization of the duties on foreign and colonial wood. [Cries of "Hear, hear," from the Ministerial side.] Yes, they would "hear" something more yet. "And when you desire to remonstrate 'on behalf of the inhabitants of a colony,' I must observe that such remonstrance ought to be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies"—here spake the Circumlocution Office! "who would exercise his discretion as to bringing them before the Minister of Finance." That was a way of conciliating the Colonies, certainly! A mere colonist had no right, to use the words "protest and remonstrate;" they were highly indecent to English ears, especially if addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Emperors only were at liberty to utter them. That was the mode in which a Minister of the Crown addressed the people of British North America—men very different from their £6 voters, who did not know what they were talking about. A colonist was told that he must not presume to approach a personage like the Chancellor of the Exchequer of all England. He, the mayor of a pettifogging place, St. John's, New Brunswick, must go back to his own country and then address his Governor, who would forward his protest to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who would exercise his discretion whether he should bring it before the Finance Minister. Probably it would never be laid before that Minister at all, because, long before this colonist reached his home and got through the Circumlocution Office, the Bill would have been framed by Parliament, and that would be the answer which his protest would receive. There were, however, other duties besides paper duties, and there were responsibilities besides those of responsible advisers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that as his correspondent was about to quit England he would waive all regard to the considerations which he had alluded to, but he begged leave to say that there were no circumstances or arguments that could have led any persons interested in colonial timber and exercising ordinary prudence to reckon on the permanence of a law for retaining the differential duties on timber. But surely plain principles of justice suggested that if their export trade was to be cut off it should not be without some little notice. If prudent men would not have had any such reliance, he could only say that the people of all British North America were very imprudent people. When the principle was announced that it was intended to give the English public the benefit of competition with the foreigner, was the differential duty not reduced to the lowest minimum? And when the trade could hardly support itself, why were the colonists to consider that the differential duty would not be continued? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that no expectation could be formed of this, for the legislation for a long series of years was founded on the principle of first abating and then destroying these duties, and the only wonder was that they should have lasted so long. Then the right hon. Gentleman said:—"You describe this change as destructive of the trade and of the property of the colonists. If so, it can only be because the differential duty exacts from the people of England, who provide for the military and naval defence of New Brunswick at their own charge, an artificial price for its produce." Now, this would be an ungenerous expression, if even it were true; but, in point of fact, there was not a word of truth in it. England protect New Brunswick, of all countries in the world! Did the English Government protect it when they sent Lord Ashburton with a dash of his pen to strike off one-third of the colony, surrendering its hest timber land, compelling a colonist to pass through a portion of the United States in order to reach his own capital, and cutting off his postal connection with Canada. If this was protection the people of New Brunswick might be able to defend themselves against their enemies, but it would be hard to save themselves from their friends. Again, did the English Government protect Nova Scotia when they abandoned its fisheries to the Americans? In such hot haste was this done that when the delegates who, to put on a plausible appearance, had been sent for from Nova Scotia arrived at Quebec, they found the treaty signed. This treaty surrendered the best fishery in the whole world, and contained a most ignorantly conceived clause, which enabled the Americans to spread their nets and cure their fish upon the uninhabited parts of the coast, the fact being that there was not an acre of unoccupied land on the whole shore of New Brunswick, so that the Americans had actually the right to spread their nets upon any field which was not ploughed and under-cropped. Was that protection? In much the same way Canada was protected, when so badly drawn up was the last treaty, that the colonists found themselves debarred from a trade which they had anticipated, because it was a coasting trade, and never got the navigation of the American canals in return for equivalent concessions which they were called upon to make. Was it protection to the North-West when, by a blunder which upon a competitive examination would have disqualified a man for a marching ensign's commission, the half of the beautiful territory of Oregon was given up, and the settlements of the North-West were handed over to the Americans, the line of demarcation being run into a place which had since led to a dispute about the island of San Juan. He was going to say that the colonists would be better without such protection, but he would leave them to say that for themselves when the time came. This protection, however, was plainly all a mistake, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer said they were protected, and assumed to know more about Canada than these gentlemen did; but that was not true. He would ask them whether they wished to spread general bankruptcy throughout the colony? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the prediction of "ruin" was not well founded; but "ruin" was not the word used—the terms were "great dissatisfaction." There was certainly a class of politicians in this country, who used words so ambiguously that there was no meeting their arguments. But Mr. M'Avity, as the right hon. Gentleman had observed, was about to quit England; and how did he get back to New Brunswick? First he had to go to New York, from there to Canada, from Canada back to Portland, and from Portland he would take the steamer to New Brunswick, because the colonists had not a road which they could make use of to reach their capital. They were told that this repeal of the differential duties was free trade, and a colonist was expected to return home crammed with this wonderful specific, which cured all diseases. "Look at the opulence of this country," it would be said to him; "see how rich we have become since we adopted the policy of free trade!" But then he would go to the United States, where he would hear it said, "See how rich we have grown under protection!" The conclusion he would come to would probably be that neither the Americans nor the English were right, and that a midway system of reciprocity was the true policy. That such was the true line to take this country would find out one day. Perhaps, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell them the longest way round was the nearest way home. But there was another gentleman who was at all events known—he alluded to Mr. Rankin. If there was a man associated with British North America who was acquainted with the timber trade it was Mr. Rankin; but, like a true Scotchman, he was now about to retire from a trade that would not pay him. He would not read that gentleman's letter at that hour, but he would only refer to one passage in which he stated that, in 1840, the balance of the timber trade in favour of the colonies was 1,511,000 tons, whereas in 1859 the balance in favour of the foreign trade was 2,614,626 tons. When these men from the colonies had exhausted themselves they got the most experienced men in Liverpool, with whom they thought to make a great combined effort and send a petition to that House. When they began to explain matters in that petition they were stopped. It was irregular. Like bad game they were told it ought to be bagged. After they had very briefly and ably stated their case, they looked round to see if there was a man in that House who cared for British North America. There was no one in Downing Street. There was no use in going to the Colonial Office—there they carried out the wishes, not of the colonists, but governed, the Colonies according to the wish of the Government. But they found in him, their countryman, a very unworthy representative. They sent their petition to him to present, he could not state their case with that effect he could have wished; and, feeling the difficulty of the case, he proposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these 3,000,000 people should be heard at the bar of the House. [A laugh.] Yes, those who considered the unrepresented rabble of England worthy of being heard night after night thought nothing of 3,000,000 of vastly more intelligent and able people than one-half of the constituency above the ten-pounders in this country. He should be more or less than a man if he did not stand up for his countrymen on the other side of the Atlantic, where his family had been for 100 years consecutively under the flag of the old country; and if they did not listen to their sole advocate, and if they did not regard their appeal with that deference it deserved, it would be echoed back with throats louder and stronger than his. What was the answer he received; "Such a thing was unheard of; "but he said their claim was not without precedent. There were precedents to which he could refer. He would refer to one, not exactly upon all fours with this, as lawyers would say, because the tax was to be paid there, not here. Dr. Franklin was heard at the bar of the House, and told them, as he now told them—but Dr. Franklin did it in triumph, while he did it in sorrow—that their legislation would lose them their colonies. Dr. Franklin's prophecy had been fulfilled. He prayed to God his might not be. A pretty reception Franklin met with. What was the language of Wedderburn? He pointed to him and called him a thief and murderer, and a man that had forfeited the good opinion of mankind. It was not a very encouraging thing to be heard at the bar of that House. But Franklin wrote a little treatise which he might recommend some hon. Gentlemen to read—for they were travelling on the same road,—in which he showed "how a great nation may be made into a very small one." The people had certainly acted with very great fairness and very great moderation. They had instructed him to ask for no remission of duty where it might affect the shipbuilder, but there was a particular description of timber that was manufactured in their sawmills on which millions had been spent, and which must be taken into consideration. The supply for the timber trade was all prepared the year before, no notice was given, and if the trade were cut short ruin would follow, not as regards the supply of Liverpool—that must come; but the labour would not be paid, the contractor with the labourers would not he paid, the merchants that supplied them with manufactured goods would not be paid, and then would come the question among the colonists, "We have all the disadvantages of belonging to Great Britain, and not one of the advantages; shall we set up for ourselves? We are as numerous as the Americans were when they conquered their independence—3,000,000 of more sterling stuff than any they had; shall we part good friends—shall we make our own treaties, or annex ourselves to our neighbours with whom our commercial interests are so nearly allied? "The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already spared some; he had granted a drawback to the paper manufacturers and also a drawback on wine. Were their children and friends in British North America, the props and supports of this country, not to be regarded with equal consideration as the manufacturers of a bit of paper? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had heard these complaints before, but an appeal to figures showed that since the passing of Sir R. Peel's Act reducing the duty on timber in 1842 the number of vessels that entered the St. Lawrence had been either diminishing or stationary. It was true that in 1845 an active demand took place, in consequence of a revival through railway speculations, but after the cessation of these it declined again. Among the very ablest shipmasters in the port of Liverpool were colonists who had left their own country on account of the stagnation of trade caused by the timber duties, while many more had been exiled to the ports of Boston and New York. Considering that the production of British North America and the Baltic countries of this particular kind of timber was pretty equal, for, although labour was cheaper in the Baltic, yet there was superior skill and enterprise in the British colonies, there were great difficulties for the latter to overcome. He found that freights from Gothenburg to Hull were 32s. 6d., while from New Brunswick to Hull they were from 80s. to 85s. If the reduction of the relative duties should take place the result would be that the Baltic timber merchant would make his profit from it and would say that Nova Scotia would be ruined entirely. That, perhaps, was a small view to take, and not sufficient to justify a long speech, but he had listened to what sailors called "long yarns" about the want of a reserve for the navy while those who talked about it did not always seem to know how to get it. Every merchant and trading company which formed a reserved fund did so from its abundance after paying expenses and profits, but the reason why our reserves for the navy had not answered was because our navy was not sufficient for us. And if this country were to retain the supremacy of the seas, was it wise to cast off the third greatest shipping Power in the world—British North America, which ranked next to the United States? But while British shipowners were complaining, while British North America was being ruined, France was acting very differently. She gave bounties (which he did not ask England to give) for the deep-sea fisheries, and had now 30,000 seamen upon the banks of Newfoundland, which she was really annexing, while our attention was taken by an ignis fatuus in Savoy, which, however interesting, as it really was, did not so nearly affect us. He did not ask for bounties, but these small timber duties, these small favours to the sailors, who would be our help in time of need, might well be spared. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked of the protection afforded to the colonies by our army and navy, but they did not need that help. In time of peace two or three vessels to protect the fisheries would be ample. He was aware that nothing could be more distasteful to the people whose interests he was advocating or more unacceptable by the people of this country than anything which bore the appearance of a threat; but he must remind the House that the country he was speaking of had all the disadvantages of a connection with England without any of its advantages. The inhabitants were not people who should be trifled with; they were rather entitled to expect kind if not paternal usage. Persons of the calico school, who regarded nothing but the manufacture of cotton, said that the United States were better customers now than when they were colonies, and that it would be no great loss to get rid of British North America. These at any rate were not patriotic sentiments, and they were not facts. The United States were in a great measure settled by rebels from the country—Cromwellians—but during the trying time of the American revolution, British North America remained true to the Sovereign, and when the revolution was over, thousands of loyalists passed from the States, and sought a home in the wildernesses of our present North American colonies, in order to have the honour and satisfaction of living and dying under the British flag. Those were the men who begot the present race, and who had transmitted their feelings of loyalty to the present generation. Nothing was so repugnant to the feelings of such people as to be treated with ridicule. In 1812, when Napoleon was marching to Moscow, and it was believed that the day of Great Britain's glory and power was declining, the United States declared war against the mother country. Who then repelled them in America? Was it the army or navy of England? Of the first we had none to spare, all our men being gloriously engaged in a life and death struggle in Europe. It was the Local Militia of Canada who drove back the hordes of invaders from those lands and pursued them beyond the borders. And at a later period, when French emissaries among a French population, and Radical Chartists who had left this country for one where they were taught to believe they would find no nobleman to whom they need take off their hats, made a hostile movement, what had happened? Who, let him ask, had repelled that invasion? The Militia of Canada; for when Sir G. Cockburn asked Sir F. Head if he could spare the services of the regular troops, that able and popular Governor, who was a standing testimony of the ingratitude of the statesmen of England, replied, "Take them all. I will place myself at the head of the Militia, and drive those men out of the country." The people of Canada, then, he contended, deserved some consideration at the hands of the English nation. In addition to the other claims which they possessed to it, he might mention the fact that the colonists had, as soon as they were able, relieved this country from hearing the expense of their local Government, and had taken it upon themselves to carry it on on a scale of munificence and liberality which was almost unequalled. They paid the Governor General whom England sent out to them, out of the meagre treasury of a young colony, a salary nearly double that which was received by the President of the United States; and the people of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the other colonies acted in a similar spirit. And what was the return which was made to them? On a recent occasion, when the question of what names should be given to four different townships in our North American provinces had been referred to the Governor General for his decision, his wife had had the good taste to impose upon them the names of Tiny, Floss, Hops, and Emily—these being the names of the pampered lap-dogs of a pampered master. Against their enemies the colonists were able to protect themselves; he asked for protection for them against the repetition of such an insult as that which he had just mentioned. Why, the Americans acted better by their negroes than to treat them after such a fashion. Instead of naming them after lap-dogs, they called them Cato, Scipio, Venus, and Juno, after the heroes of antiquity, and the goddesses of the ancient mythology. Were our North American colonists the sons of dogs that they should be placed upon a lower level than the negro? Pie, for one, should enter his indignant protest against acts so insulting as that to which he referred. But it was urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the colonists imposed taxes upon English produce. Who was it, he would ask, that directed them to do so? Those who presided in that beautiful establishment in Downing Street, which operated as a nightmare upon our colonies, and who sent out instructions to the effect that the foreigner was not to be taxed, and that England would get into trouble with respect to her treaty engagements if there were not discriminating duties. Still, it was contended that the colonists taxed England; but it should be remembered that it was they themselves who virtually paid the tax. They had good reason, therefore, under all the circumstances which he had stated, to complain of the position in which they were placed. They were ridiculed by their American neighbours in a way which was most painful to their feelings. The people of the United States said to them, "You now belong to England, but associate yourselves with us, and you shall have 10 Members in the Senate and 140 in the House of Representatives. Instead of being encroached upon by us, you would become one of us, and we should take care that nobody should interfere with you. Instead of being excluded from a share in the patronage of our country, you would have open to you all the offices of an united empire. The negroes of St. Domingo have their sable representative at the Court of London; you have none. Will you longer submit to occupy a position so inferior?" Such were the taunts with which the people of Canada had to bear; let him beseech the House of Commons not to afford cause for their continuance, and not to place it out of the power of colonists to belong to this country. In using the language to which he had given expression he was not afraid of being misunderstood. The whole object of his life and writings had been to unite, by bonds firmer and more indissoluble, Canada with England, to unite the raw material of the new country with the manufacturing skill of the old, in order that, both possessing one language, one literature, one blessed system of freedom, they might grow together in prosperity and greatness under the ancient and glorious flag of Britain. To the sentiments which he had uttered that evening he had often before given expression, although in a form somewhat different, entertaining, as he did, an earnest hope that relations might endure for ever between the two countries which were calculated to be profitable to both.

said, it was not necessary that he should detain the House for more than a few moments as it would be quite out of place to enter upon the wide field which the hon. and learned Gentleman had with so much ability traversed. He had entered upon the whole subject of the relations between Great Britain and the North American colonies, and had expressed with great frankness his views of what he conceived the ungracious treatment which the colonies had received at the hands of Great Britain. He had had, at any rate, practical experience, in doing so, of the disposition of the House to permit and encourage free discussion. He concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the sympathy and respect which he felt towards the colonists of British North America, but he must confess he regretted some of the language the hon. and learned Gentleman had used, and the comparison he had thought it necessary to draw to their disadvantage. The opinion which the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed, that the colonists of British North America were ungenerously treated, was not one which the Government entertained, nor did he think it would meet with any considerable expression of concurrence on the part of the Committee. Indeed, there was something of paradox in his comparison between the conduct of our forefathers at a time when the old Tory opinions, which he so much eulogised at the beginning of his speech, prevailed, in laying a tax on the British colonies, and the conduct of parliament in relieving the people of England of a tax which they alone were paying. As regarded the question of the timber duties, there was no occasion for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to enter into it; because the very brief and simple considerations which he thought would govern the policy of Parliament with respect to it were stated in a letter of his which the hon. and learned Gentleman had paid him the compliment to take as a text for a large portion of his speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been pleased to characterize that as a haughty and supercilious communication; but it was somewhat remarkable that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had only yesterday received a reply to that letter from Mr. M'Avity, the gentleman to whom it was addressed, in which he particularly thanked him for the very courteous terms in which it was couched. But he was bound to say that he had no evidence, except in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, of that burning dissatisfaction—that rankling sense of wrong—which he described as prevailing among the people of British North America. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took it to be an undoubted fact that Parliament had now been long engaged in the removal of differential duties, both at home and with respect to colonial produce, and that of all the interests with which it had had to deal there was no one with respect to which it had proceeded more gradually, tenderly, and cautiously than the timber trade of British North America. In 1842, 1850, and in other years, when protecting duties had been reduced, notice had been given; and he believed that this had long survived every other object of colonial protection. He believed the opinion of this country was fixed on this subject, and he had no evidence before him,' except the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the very just and moderate measure of the Government was in any manner resented by the people of that colony. Indeed, the question was so thoroughly understood by the House and the country that it would not be necessary for him to discuss it at greater length, and without intending any disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman he should now leave the decision to the Committee.

objected to the clause as amended.

said, he should move that the Chairman report progress, as it was quite evident, from the right hon. Gentleman's admission, that the clause, as proposed, was not likely to settle the question.

assented to the Chairman reporting progress.