MR. BANKES agreed with the hon. Member as to the rev. gentleman's good qualities; but a love of notoriety, in his opinion, counterbalanced them all.

MR. WAKLEY thought that some allowance ought really to be made for the rev. gentleman. He had probably either heard or read the debates in the House; and if so, he had had the most ample opportunities of studying personal attacks made against honour and character. Indeed, he feared that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes) had something to answer for in this respect.

The subject dropped.

not for him (Mr. Christie) to say that in | appears, that when excise duties are reall instances he had acted with the greatest duced, we are able to save an enormous discretion; but he had read the letter in sum in the expense of collection, reducing question, and his impression was that there the number of officers employed therein, was nothing in that document of which the while at the same time we are relieving writer need be ashamed, and nothing which trade of many restrictions and inconvenicould be construed into a breach of the pri- ences, and giving a spring to industry. vileges of the House. The hon. Gentle- When the excise duties were reduced on man had only read portions of the letter, auctions and upon glass to the extent of but if he had read the whole the House 900,000l., the cost of collection to the would have seen that the words complained amount of 52,000l. was reduced, and the of were mere playful annotations on the ex- salaries of 450 officers saved to the public; pressions used in the speech of the hon. whereas it appears that when customs' duGentleman the Member for Dorsetshire ties are reduced, the expense of collection (Mr. Floyer). is not reduced, for not a single officer can be dispensed with. Therefore, as you reduce the customs' duties the amount of revenue so lost is greater, and the extent of relief to the country is in the same proportion less than in the case of similar reductions in excise duties. These would be sufficient reasons, did none other exist, for not reducing the customs' duties in preference to the excise. But there is another reason, perhaps even of greater force. When you reduce customs' duties, the foreigner shares with the consumer in this country the benefit of the reduction. This has been shown in the case of the timber duties, on which at least one-third of the reduction has gone into the pockets of the foreigner. But if you reduce the duties on excise articles-soap, malt, bricks, &c., &c.-the whole of the benefit is derived by the subjects of Great Britain. I cannot LORD G. BENTINCK said: Sir, I rise understand upon what principle, so long as to oppose the second reading of the Report there are any excise duties to be reduced, on this measure, founded as it is on the the Legislature should prefer to levy these principle of remitting duties of the cus- duties, and to reduce the duties of customs. toms instead of the excise. So long, Sir, The excise duty on soap, for instance, as we levy the enormous amount which we amounts to 36 per cent ad valorem; and derive from the excise, I think there is no it is admitted on all hands that soap is an argood reason why we should remit these ticle which, next to the absolute necessaries duties of customs, amounting to no less of life, adds more than anything else to the than 2,400,0007., which amount of reduc- comforts of the poor; and it is equally imtion could be applied more beneficially to portant in manufactures. Then there is excise duties, pressing as they do more in- an excise duty upon hops-a duty realizconveniently and severely on the people of ing to the revenue only some 200,000l. or this country. This is one strong though sim- 300,000l., but yet not less than 2d. per ple ground upon which I object to proceed-pound, and levied with restrictions most ing with this report. Another ground is, that if we are to reduce customs duties in preference to excise, we ought to apply ourselves to the reduction of the duties on the produce of those countries which take most of our produce that we should give the preference to duties on articles which do not come into competition with the industry of this country. By a return laid on our Table by the First Minister of the Crown, it

CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.

On the Motion that the Amendments made by the Committee be now read a Second Time,

inconvenient to the producer, as the hopgrower cannot dry his hops without twenty-four hours' notice to the excise officer to attend the process. Then, Sir, as to the malt duty. As it amounts to 5,000,000Z. per annum, it would not be possible, with a surplus of 2,400,000l., to remit the whole of that duty; but at a future period the surplus might be larger; and there are some reasons for contemplating the possi

have never been in favour of any prohibitory duty; but I cannot understand why, as long as you consent to levy a duty of 70 per cent upon malt-as long as you levy a duty upon the grain of this country before it is distilled into spirits, making it altogether a duty of 400 per cent before the barley, or any grain, whatever it might be, can be converted into spirits-as long as you levy a duty of 36 per cent, ad valorem, upon soap-and as long as you levy a duty of something like 25 per cent upon bricks, I cannot understand upon what principle you abolish duties on foreign commodities when imported, none of them exceeding the 30 per cent which you have hitherto levied upon corn, and yet levy, generally speaking, upon silk. I am aware there are some articles on which the First Minister of the Crown remitted duty amounting to 147 per cent. It is upon caps and turbans. I believe that is one of the compensations offered to the agriculturists. I do not know to what portion of the agriculturists this relief will apply. I know not whether Her Majesty's Ministers intend that the wives of the agricultural labourers, or the labourers themselves, or the farmers, or their wives, are to deck themselves

bility of remitting this duty; as, for example, there might be a tax, perhaps, on beer, which might realize half the amount of the malt duty, and thus the House might be enabled to take off altogether the other half of the duty, and entirely relieve the maltster and farmer from the restrictions which press so heavily upon them. Mr. Huskisson well said, that the malt duty amounted to 60 or 70 per cent on the value of the barley, and that the restrictions and inconveniencies incident to the excise were equivalent to at least 50 per cent more. The malt duty is fixed, whatever the quality of the barley; the result of which is, that the malting is almost restricted to the superior barley. The regulations of the Excise impose the most severe restrictions on the farmer to prevent him from steeping his barley. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, indeed, declared that experiments had been made by learned professors, not by agriculturists, proving that raw barley was as good for the fattening of cattle as malted barley. But the opinion of these learned professors is utterly at variance with those of practical agriculturists; and Mr. Hudson, one of the largest graziers and farmers in the country, who expended 10,000l. a year in oil-cake alone, has chal-out in these turbans and caps of French lenged the Government and their professors to a trial of the virtue of malted barley, at the rate of five quarters malted to seven quarters of raw. I find that as Her Majesty's Ministers like small numbers of examples in financial matters, so they like short numbers in examples on cattle. [The noble Lord quoted two examples from the Report of the Commissioners to inquire into the effects of Malt in fattening Cattle, of the feeding of two cows and two bullocks with malt and with barley.] The noble Lord proceeded-I think, Sir, when I come to analyse the report of 102 pages, I shall find that the experiments there mentioned are not worth a great deal more than the three years' experience of the present Government. I think it must be admitted, at all events so far as the inconvenience is concerned which these restrictions impose upon the farmers, that the question remains just where it did before any experiments were made. Having dealt with this part of the question, I am unwilling to occupy the time of the House upon the subject of silk manufactures. I object to the measure before the House on the ground that it is an unnecessary interference with the due protection to all these interests. I

manufacture. As far as the agricultural interest is concerned, we would rather see the bonnet makers, and hatters, and dressmakers of this country undisturbed in the enjoyment of their present monopoly, than accept any such compensation at the hands of the Government. Then, Sir, I will refer to the article of timber. The duty reduced upon Baltic timber already has amounted to 30s. per load. What has been the result? Why, that while the price of English oak was reduced 12s. a load, upon an average of the last three years, compared with the three years that Baltic timber was admitted into competition, and whilst the price of Canada timber was also reduced, the Baltic growers were enabled so far to increase their price, that they have put 10s. upon each load into their pockets for the last three years; and this last year they have profited to the amount of 17s. 6d. upon each load. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the Baltic growers have now got a monopoly given to them by your measures; and you are proposing now to increase that monopoly, by giving them the advantage of 10s. a load more. They are amply protected by the difference between the freight from Canada and the Baltic of 20s. a load; and, there

that Prussia will; but it has not yet done so. Has the remission of duty on our part induced them to take any more of your cotton manufactures? I find in a statement that has been made, upon the accuracy of which great reliance can be placed

fore, it is impossible for the Canadian timber growers to compete with the Baltic growers. It is impossible for them to afford to sell their timber at a lower price than they sell it now; and the result will be, that the Baltic growers, not being exposed to competition, will be able to main--I mean a pamphlet I have quoted before, tain the high price their timber now bears. entitled "The Free Trade Policy ExaPerhaps it will be argued that it is the re- mined, by a Liverpool Merchant," and cerduction of the price of foreign timber that tainly one of the ablest pamphlets written has caused the great consumption lately; upon the subject-it says, as regards these but we have had the authority of the hon. countries, Denmark, Prussia, Sweden, and Gentleman the Member for Sunderland Norway, the export of plain cottons in the (Mr. Hudson) that there would not be one year 1843 amounted to 2,212,936 yards; foot less of timber consumed on the rail- but in the year 1845, far from increasing, ways in this country, whether the duty was the export of cottons only amounted to 55s., or whether it was reduced, as you 2,048,678 yards, being a decrease of 10 now propose to reduce it, to 15s. Upon an per cent on the amount of plain cottons average, there is now consumed upon rail-exported from this country. On printed ways in this country 5,000,000 cubic feet of timber. This would be equally consumed, whether the price was 10s. a load more, or 10s. a load less. If the consumption had remained the same as it was formerly, it would have given an enormous increase of revenue to this country. In the year 1841, there were imported from the Baltic 561,313 loads of timber. This was composed of timber of all descriptions. In the year 1845, the timber so imported had risen up to 1,105,224 loads. This great increase in number was occasioned by the great railway speculation; and I am sure it never entered into the consideration of any railway company whether the price of timber was 47. 10s. or 4d. The price was never for a moment taken into calculation in any discussion before the railway companies. Taking 30s. as the duty, the loss to the revenue would amount, upon the quantity of timber I have mentioned, to 1,725,3367. This is the amount of duty which, if it had been received, might have enabled you to reduce a very great number of those excise duties that are now inflicted. You might have remitted the soap duties, brick duties, and hop duties, if you had such a sum of money as that to deal with. Well, then, let us see whether the reduction of these duties has had the effect which the manufacturers of this country anticipated it would have-which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton imagined it would have in 1839. That hon. Gentleman thought that the reduction in the timber duties would have induced foreign countries to reduce their tariffs, and take more of our manufactures in return. None of these foreign Governments have as yet reduced their tariffs. We are told

cottons, I find there was an export to those four countries of 1,207,198 yards in 1843; and in the year 1845 the quantity decreased to 971,156 yards, thus showing a decrease of 20 per cent. Then it seems it is vain for you to attempt to entice foreign countries to take your manufactures by importing their produce either free or at a low reduction of duty. You cannot, as has been ably said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli), break down their hostile tariffs by your free imports. This was not the policy of Pitt. His policy was by treaty and negotiation to obtain reciprocal advantages for the commerce of the country. In his great measure of commercial regulation with France, Mr. Pitt distinctly founded that measure upon a ground the very reverse of the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Ministers. He distinctly founded his policy upon this ground, not that the free air of competition was good for the producers of this country, but that the great manufactures of France, and the great productions of France, should not clash with the great productions of this country. Mr. Pitt compared the French and English to two traders, in different spheres of life, not at all interfering one with the other; and the policy of his measure was this, that whilst the duties upon French goods were reduced, especially upon French brandy, about 100 per cent, he bargained that the duties upon the manufactures of English production should on no one article exceed 15 per cent ; 15, 10, and 5 per cent, were the duties levied by the French Government upon articles of British manufacture. Mr. Pitt argued, that for every 1,000l. France gave to England, she must have given a million. His

language, in speaking of France, was that | for indigo; and said, that the time was it was ridiculous to imagine that the French when you had to seek your indigo from fowould consent to yield up advantages with-reign markets, but by the cultivation of out any idea of a return. But Her Ma- indigo in the East Indies, we had been jesty's Ministers have now put it out of enabled to supply ourselves, and so it would their power to give any return. They have be with cotton. That Gentleman advised given away all they had to give. France them to give to the East Indies a protectwill take, Russia will take, Prussia will ing duty on cotton, and it would then suptake, the United States of America will ply us with the article, and we should take, all the boons you have offered be no longer obliged to obtain it from them, and kindly thank you for the same, America. It is very clear that Mr. and in return they will give you nothing. Huskisson's notions of free trade were You should have held back these advan- not for us to have free trade without any tages and bargained with them, and then reciprocity. If the right hon. Baronet preyou might have induced them to reduce tends to be a disciple of Mr. Huskisson, he their tariffs. Mr. Pitt did not propose is certainly not walking in the true course to admit the grain of France or any other pointed out by that Gentleman. Neither produce which would clash with the policy is he walking in the course of policy folof this country. That was a sound princi- lowed by Mr. Canning or Mr. Pitt. But ple of a great Minister; and did that policy what is the course adopted by Her Madiffer from the policy of Mr. Huskisson or jesty's Government? They appear to take that of Mr. Canning? Why, when the a pleasure in reducing the duty on the proUnited States of America raised their du- ducts of those countries which have hostile ties on rolled iron in the year 1823 or tariffs. Their reductions are chiefly upon 1824, did Mr. Canning sit down in silence the products of the United States, of the and endure that the manufacturers of this countries of the Zollverein, of Russia, country should have higher duties placed Prussia, Norway, and Sweden; and these upon their manufactures without a return of are the countries which have the highest any value? No. He issued an Order in protective duties. It appears to me that Council, and took immediate means to be the wiser policy would be to reduce the avenged upon them for the high duties duties upon the products of those countries they had placed upon the manufactures of which take our manufactures at a low duty, this country. What was the statement of and to reduce the duties more especially Mr. Huskisson in that House, in the year upon the products of those countries, which 1828, when speaking of the American ta- having no ships of their own would be riff? When that tariff was raised upon obliged to carry their produce in the ships cotton, and especially upon woollen, the of this country. Thus China, with a popuAmericans entered into a nice calculation lation of 300,000,000-China, which levies to know how much they would be affected a duty of 6 per cent upon our goodsby our reduction of 5d. a pound upon wool, China, which has no ships of her own to and having ascertained that it would make carry her produce-China, which is rea difference of 14 per cent, in the practical moved to such a distance, that it requires a protection which the manufacturers of the Chinaman thirteen months to make a voyUnited States received, they raised their age from this country to China and back— duty immediately. Mr. Huskisson, refer- there is an opportunity, if you are deterring to that tariff and the proceedings of mined to reduce your customs' dutiesthe United States Government, said that if there is a great opportunity for you to enthey persevered in their course he would courage your trade with China. You raise take measures to retaliate. That Gentle- 250 per cent of duty upon tea, which, next man asked, how should it be expected, that to bread, has become one of the necessaries if you submit passively to such proceedings of life to the poor in this country. On as those on the part of the United States, what principle do you say that you will not you can expect that other countries will continue to levy a duty which never since continue to allow your produce and manu- 1842 has amounted to 27 per cent on fofactures to enter their markets at low du-reign corn, and yet continue to levy a duty ties? Mr. Huskisson even, in the article of 250 per cent upon tea, which is paid by of cotton, said, you must put a duty upon the poor? We have in the reports of the cotton at once and for all, and encourage Canadian newspapers which were received the growth of it in your own East Indies. two days ago, an example of what the reHe referred to what protection had done duction of the duties on tea will do in the

jesty's Ministers should issue in more of the carrying trade of this country being transferred from the shipping interest of this country to foreign ships. I am well aware, that when I urge the question of the shipping interests upon the notice of the House and the country, I shall be told in return, that though it is perfectly true that the shipping interest in the Baltic has increased threefold within the last five years, yet our own shipping has increased also. But what is that, if all other nations beat us in the race? It is no good to us that we progress at a certain pace, if all other nations should far outstrip us; and when we reflect that the number of seamen employed by us in the trade with the United States so long ago as 1769 was 28,000, and that now they only amount to 9,000, it must be admitted that the great falling-off in the employment of our seamen in those countries which from Colonies have become independent States, is matter for very important consideration. Coupled with that comes the question of the Canadas. I am aware an impression has gone forth, that notwithstanding the untoward appearance of Her Majesty's Ministers being in a minority in the Canadas, which I noticed on a former occasion-an impression has gone forth that Her Majesty's Ministers have obtained a great triumph, and that the Canadas are entirely satisfied with their po

way of consumption. I see it stated in the | for free trade will find their own profits speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer greatly curtailed, if the policy of Her Main the Legislative Assembly of Canada, that the consumption of tea in Canada has risen tenfold since they reduced the duty. Well, then, it is clear that if we reduce the duty on tea in this country, where the taste for tea has increased to a greater extent than it can possibly have done in the colder climate of North America, there can be no doubt that here also its consumption would be greatly increased. But, instead of that, you reduce the duties on the produce of those countries which will not take your manufactures in return, and which already engross the greater part of the carrying trade. Take the United States for example. I find by a report that the clearances from the port of Liverpool to ports in the United States, Boston, Charleston, Baltimore, New Orleans, New York, and Philadelphia, in the year 1845, consisted of 127 British vessels, measuring 79,417 tons, and no less than 463 vessels of the United States, measuring 305,229 tons, so that four-fifths of the whole tonnage employed in that trade belong to the United States of America. By another statement, which appears to be well authenticated, it seems that of the whole shipping trade of Liverpool half is employed in the trade to our own Colonies. Therefore I think that the policy which is pursued in the measures before the House, is one which is not conducive either to the maritime strength or to the national prosperity of the country. Ilicy. I confess that after having read the have said on former occasions, and I think it cannot be too often urged upon the House, that the disadvantage of the trade of this country being carried on in foreign ships, is not limited to the freights or to the crews employed, or even to the shipping interest itself. It is not limited to the shipowners, or even to the sailors, but it extends much further. The provisioning of those ships amounts to an enormous sum in the course of a year. It is perfectly clear that when a British ship comes home, and the men are paid off in a British port, all the wages earned by the seamen are spent in that British port. The publican, the baker, and the slopseller, the tailor, all come in for their share. But if the goods of a foreign country are carried in the ships of a foreign country, the sailors spend none of their money in this country. They return home-they are paid in a foreign country, and in that country they expend all their wages. Therefore, I think that many of those classes who now cry out

debates and the Canada newspapers, I am at a loss to discover on what those who take this view of the question ground their opinion. True, it is, that the first minority in which Her Majesty's Ministers were put in the Legislative Assembly of Canada has been overcome; but how has it been overcome? It has been overcome by the measures which have been introduced not coming up to the measures which were recommended by the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. They have declined to adopt free trade; but they say there is a 3s. duty, which has been placed upon the frontier for the protection of the agriculture of Great Britain; and we consent to remove that duty. They say if you desire it we shall remove that protection; we shall consent to allow wheat to pass in bond, as it were, for exportation to the mother country. But we will not consent to adopt measures of free trade as the policy of our country. But does that express satisfaction with the measures of