The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-18 00:00:00

ART-UNIONS.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from
the Art-Union of London, praying that the Art-Unions of the
country might be legalised.
IRISH POOR-LAW.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE then rose, pursuant to
notice, to present a petition respecting the state of the Eden-
derry Workhouse, in Ireland. The prayer of the petition was
merely for inquiry, in order to prevent a recurrence of such
conduct in future on the part of the Commissioners. This
was a matter of vast import, because the law, as
it now stood, was most unpopular amongst all par-
ties, with the exception, perhaps, of some few amongst the
higher classes. It was perfectly impossible, if they wanted to
maintain peace in Ireland, that this law could be continued.
In the newspapers of that day were detailed the circumstances
of an affray caused by the collection of poor-rates, when the
highest amount due was only Is. This measure had been car-
ried completely against the will of the greater nunaber; of the
Irish Members, and therefore must have been ill-suited to the
condition of the country.
The Duke of WELLINGTON agreed that this was a sub-
ject of great importance. The report of the Commission ap-
pointed to inquire into the subject would be laid upon the
table in a very short time, when their Lordships would have
better information. He was ready to do every thing in his
power to insure the beneficial operation of the poor-law in
Ireland.

The Earl of POWIS presented petitions against the union
of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and in favour "of the
establishment of a bishopric in Manchester. The Noble Earl
gave notice that he should submit a motion on the subject on
Tuesday, 11th June.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from certain
persons praying their Lordships to take into their consideration
the state of the common women of the metropolis. The peti-
tioners were the members of certain societies ftr the recla-
mation of unfortunate women. The petitioners stated that
seduction was carried on to an enormous extent in the metro-
polis, and many thousands of houses had been established
for the purpose of facilitating that vice ; and the petitioners
prayed the House to take some measures for putting a stop to
so horrible a system as that which at present prevailed in the
metropolis for the seduction of innocent young females. The
Right Rev. Prelate laid on the table of the House a Bill for the
purpose of the more effectual suppression of brothels, and the
suppression of trading in prostitution.
The Bill, after a few words from the Earl.of MOUNT-
CASHEL, was read a first time.
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE then rose to call the attention of
their Lordships to the present state of the new Houses of Par-
liament. He said it had become necessary to bring the sub-
ject under the consideration of the House, inasmuch as very
extensive alterations had been made by Mr. Barry in the plans
as originally laid down—these alterations having been made
without the concurrence of the Committee which had
been appointed to watch the progress of the new
buildings. The alterations he would shortly describe to
their Lordships. In the original plan it was proposed
that her Majesty when going to the House of Parliament
should enter the new Houses by the western door of what was
called the Victoria Tower, and she would then proceed along
a staircase into her robing-room immediately behind the throne
in the new House of Lords, and after robing she would pro-
ceed at once into the House of Lords. The alteration which had
been made by Mr. Barry was, that the Queen should enter the
Victoria Tower at the east door, proceed along a passage up a
staircase, and crossing a yard to the robing-room. From the
robing-room she would pass into the House of Lords by way of a
passage to be called the Victoria passage. Now, Mr. Barry
had no authority whatever for making those alterations, and
certainly was _not justified according to his own account in
making them. He (Lord Wharncliffe) protested against its
being urged that these alterations were mere matters of taste.
They were no such thing, and he could not discover that they
were alterations of convenience, or that sufficient benefit would
be derived from them to justify the outlay of money, which
they would require. He moved that the matter be referred to
a Committee of the Board of Works.
Lord SUDELEY said he was one of the Commissioners
who were appointed to decide upon the plans which were ori-
ginally sent in for the construction of the new Houses of Par-
liament. There were ninety-seven competitors, and the num-
ber of plans submitted was upwards of 1,100. The task of
the Commissioners, therefore, was not a light one. The Com-
missioners came to the determination of deciding in favour of
the plan of Mr. Barry, and in coming to that conclusion the
Commissioners fully understood that, in carrying out the plan,
Mr. Barry would, from time to time, make various alterations
in the details of his plans ; but they believed that he would not
do so without the concurrence of the Government. He differed
very much from the opinion of the Noble Lord opposite that
these alterations were not matters of taste.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE—The House of Lords is not the
proper place to discuss a question of taste ; but I have no taste
upon this subject at all.
Lord SUDELEY hoped then that their Lordships would
not attach much weight to the observations of the Noble
Lord upon this subject.—( Laugh ter. ) The Noble Lord then
proceeded to show that the alteration which had been made in
the Victoria Tower had arisen from the mode in which Dr.
Reid had determined upon carrying his apparatus for ventilat-
ing the new building into the sew Houses of Parliament. He
contended that the plans ought to have been definitively settled
eight years ago, and ought not, as in point of fact was the case,
to have been postponed until the present day, and they were
not settled yet. Although he had great confidence in Mr.
Barry, yet he never would have consented to allow him to
make any alteration he pleased without first consulting the Go-
vernment, and he trusted that in future the Government would
not allow any alteration to be made without their express ap-
proval.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought it would be most
inconvenient to go into a general discussion on the subject; but
what he wished to say was, that he entirely concurred in the
observations which had fallen from the Noble President of the
Council (Lord Whatncliffe). Ile had no doubt that the al.
terations which had taken place in the Victoria Tower, had been
made at the instance of Dr. Reid, in order that be might the
more easily erect his apparatus for the ventilation of the new
Houses of Parliament.

Lord BROUGHAM expressed a hope that Mr. Barry
would, in future, make no changes without first consulting the
Government. He must protest against Mr. Barry's conti-
nually fighting with the Committee on the subject of delay.
No doubt Mr. Barry, like all other artists, wished to make a
display by having the whole of the new .building opened at the
same time. He (Lord Brougham) however trusted that the
Government would not allow this, but compel Mr. Barry to
stick to his implied bargain of opening the House of Lords
next session.
The Marquis of CL AN [tic A RDE expressed a similar hope.
Lord COLBORNE did not think it was politic to take the
responsibility of may changes off the shoulders of Mr. Barry.
If Mr. Barry was to carry this great work to completian it
was absolutely necessary that they should place confidence
in him.
After a few words from the Earl of BESBOROUGH, and the
Marquis of NoRmANBY, the motion was agreed to.
The Courts of Common Law Bills, were read a third time
and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Eight o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 17.

The SPEAKER. took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
The Westminster and Lambeth Suspension Bridge Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Salford
against certain clauses of the Poor-law Amendment Bill ; also
a petition in favour of the Dissenters Chapels Bill.
Petitions in favour of the'Dissenters' Chapels Bill were pre-
sented by Dr. Bowring from Bolton; Mr. Pusey and Sir
George Grey from Devonshire ; Lord Robert Grosvenor from
Chester ; and the Solicitor-General from places in Ireland.
Petitions were presented against the Bill by Colonel Con-
nolly from Donegal, Mr. Plumptre from Durham, and Mr.
Heathcoat from Tiverton.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a number of petitions
against the Irish Registration Bill.
Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Bath, praying
that the practice of granting PoAt-office money orders on the
Lord's Day may be abolished.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS presented a petition against the union
of the sees of Asaph and Bangor, and in favour of the esta-
blishment of a Bishopric of Manchester.
Lord CHARLES MANNERS presented a petition from
several solicitors residing its Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire,
against certain clauses in the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.
Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from the Welsh Cal-
vinistic Methodists resident in London, against the Dissenters'
Chapels Bill.
Sir T. WILDE presented a petition very numerously
signed to the same effect.
Mr. FOX MAULE presented two petitions, one in favour
of, and the other against, the Dissenters Chapels Bill.
Colonel LOWTHER presented a petition, signed by 4,500
persons, in favour of agricultural protection.

Captain PECHELL presented a petition from an Unitarian
congregation in Brighton, and from several other Dissenting
congregations of the town, in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels
Bill.

Mr. PATTISON presented two petitions to the same effect.
Lord POLLINGTON presented a similar petition.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from a Dissenting congre-
gation in Warwickshire, against certain clauses in the Dissen-
ters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. C. BERKELEY presented a petition from Cheltenham,
in favour of the Bill.

Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition against it.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from members
of the Established Church at Preston, in favour of the Dis-
senters' Chapels Bill: also a petition from the Roman Catholics
of the same place to the same effect.
Mr. BARNARD presented a petition from the Vauxhall
Bridge Company, against the Lambeth Suspension Bridge Bill.
PULTENEY TOWN HARBOUR BILL.
On the motion of Mr. GREENE, the Pulteney Town
Harbour and Improvement Bill was ordered to be re-com-
mitted to the former Committee.

Mr. ESCOURT brought up the report of the Standing
Orders Ciimmittee on the Great Southern and Western Rail-
way (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. WYSE presented a petition from Kilkenny, praying for
the suspension of the Standing Orders in reference to the
Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland) Bill.
Petitions in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill were pre-
sented by Mr. Ward fiom Sheffield, Lord A. Lennox from
Chichester, Mr. V. Smith from Northampton, Mr. Labou-
chere from Taunton, and Mr. C. Wood from Halifax.

Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented petitions in favour cf the
Disenters' Chapels Bill, from the Protestant Dissenters of the
New Meeting-house at Birmingham ; from the Protestant Dis-
senters of the Old Meeting-house ; from the officers and
teachers of the Dissenters' Sunday-school, and of the adult
pupils of the same at the Old Meeting-house ; also one from
the descendants, relatives, and friends of persons who have
been interred in the burial-ground attached to the Old Meet-
ing-house.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from Devon-
shire in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord WORSLEY presented several petitions from Lincoln-
shire in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. RUSHIHIOOKE presented a petition from Suffolk in
favour of severer punishment for the crime of arson.
Sir J. lIANMER presented two petitions in favour of the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. lIUME gave notice that, when the Savings' Banks
Bill should be brought before the House, he should move a
clause, repealing the section of the 9th George IV., cap. 19,
which allowed the Minister of the day to deal with moneys de-
posited in Savings' Banks in the purchase of Government
securities. _

Mr. IL BERKELEY gave notice that, when the Inclosure
Bill should be in Committee, he would move to expunge
clause t,G.

IMPORTATION OF BOOTS AND SHOES.

Mr. 11. BERKELEY moved for a return of the number of
boots and shoes imported during the years ending Jan. 5,1840,
to Jan. 5, 1844, stating the amount of duty paid thereon.—
Agreed to.

GAOLS.
Mr. MACKINNON moved for certain returns on the subject
of gaols.
Sir W. CLAY presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets
in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
CUSTOMS ACTS.—COAL.
On the motion that the Order of the Day for going into
Committee on t'ie Customs Acts be read,
Lord HOWICK said that the coal return, which had been
asked for a long time since, was not yet in the possession of the
House. Ile thought it very hard that this return, so essential
to the c nsideration of the subject of the coal duties, was not
yet in the hands of Members.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
when the return was asked for, he sent directions to have it
made out, but owing to some difficulties that presented them-
selves, they luld not been able to make it out yet.
IRISH CHURCH.

Mr. WARD said that he wished to ask a question of the
Noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for Ireland, on the
subject of the Irish Church. In the debate which had taken
place last year on the Irish Church, he ( Mr. Ward) had given
an estimate of the revenues of the Irish Church which
amounted to 552,7531. The Noble Lord, who censured him
on that occasion, also gave an estimate which amounted to
432,023/. which he received from the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners. The Noble Lord subsequently explained to
him ( Mr. Ward) that his (the Noble Lord's) estimate
was inaccurately made up, and that a mistake of 120,0001.
had been made. Thus both estimates would nearly
agree. An estimate had since been made out which,
though it took twelve months in the preparation, was ex-
tremely defective. Ile wished to ask the Noble Lord whe-
ther he could reconcile it to his conduct and his duty to lay
such a return on the table as the only information which the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners could give Parliament on the
subject?
Lord ELIOT said that the Hon. Gentleman had accurately
stated what had taken place last year. The estimate which
he had given was derived from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
but Mr. Irck, the gentleman who prepared it, being engaged
in other business, had committed an error of 120,000/. in the
calculation. In order to prepare an accurate return, it was
necessary that the dignitaries and bishops of the Church should
make returns of their revenues ; but neither the Government
nor the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had the power to compel
them. They could only give perfect returns of the revenues
of those particular livings which had become the property of
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and of those livings which
came under the operation of the Church Temporalities Act.
After a few words from Mr. SHAW,

Mr. SHEIL wished to know from the Noble Lord whether
he had any objection to lay the letter of Mr. lrck on the
table of the House? _ _

Lord ELIOT said it was a private letler, and he did not see
what good could be obtained by its production.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said the course pursued in this
matter on the part of the Noble Lord and the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin University, after the mistake of Mr. Irck,
was most strange. The Learned Recorder had moved last
August for a large detailed return of the revenues of the Irish
Church, but those papers had not been laid before the House.
If the papers were laid on the table of the House, they would
have a full body of information on the subject.
Lord ELIOT disclaimed any intention to conceal any infor-
mation on the subject.
SIX CLERKS—COMPENSATION. _

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Right Hon. klaroret had
stated the other night that Lord Cottenham had given his as-
sent to the compensation clauses in the Bill relating to the abo-
lition of the office of the six clerks. Ile ( Lord .1. Russell) had
since understood from that Noble and Learned Lord that, so
far from giving his approbation to those clauses, he had de-
clined giving any opinion on the subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM said if the Noble Lord had intimated to
him that he meant to draw the attention of the House
to the matter, he would have brought down a letter which
had been handed to him by the Solicitor-General, and which he
(Sir J. Graham) had in his hands when he made the state-
ment. That letter was from Mr. Wainwright, and he stated
positively in it that he had waited on Lord Cottenham, and es-
pecially called his attention to the clauses giving compensation
to the parties, not only during life, but extending to a period
after their death, in consideration of the transferring which had
been exercised for a long period, and that Lord Cottenham
made no objection whatever to those clauses.
I.ord J. RUSSELL—It was not that he made any objection,
but that he declined giving any opinion on the subject.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—That was not the representation
of Mr. Wainwright.
Mr. C. BERKELEY inquired whether the Government
meant to introduce a Bill upon Charitable Trusts? The Right
lion. Baronet had maid some time ago, that it was the intention
of the Lord Chancellor to introduce such a Bill into the House
of Lords.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM !aid that it was the intention of
the Lord Chancellor to introduce a Bill on the subject.
STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Mr. BORTHWICK complained of the state in which the
public business was at present. He wanted to know when the
Poor-law Amendment Bill would be brought before the
House. There were several other Bills too, such as the County
Courts Bill and Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, which he was
also anxious to know when they would be brought forward.
The House was so frequently counted out that it became quite
an abuse ; and last night so thin was the attendance of Hon.
Members that he could have counted it out when the First
Lot d of the Treasury was speaking.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was afraid he could not set the
Hon. Member's mind at rest with regard to the House being
counted out on motion nights; but he was not aware that it
hail been counted out on a single order night. The Right
lion. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury had given notice
of his intention to move, that after the first week in June
orders should take precedence of motions. lie ( Sir J. Gra-
ham) could not give any definite answer to the Hon. Member's
question with respect to the Poor-law Bill, but he would en-
deavour to do so before the Whitsun recess. lie had hoped
that some progress would have been made in the County
Courts Bill before Whitsuntide, but a difficulty had arisen
which he did not foresee. A very grave question was now
pending in the other House with respect to the abolition
of imprisonment for debts in execution. The principle had,
in fact, been affirmed by the other House. Now, it appeared
to him important that the sense of the House should be taken
on the principle of that measure before they proceeded further
with the discussion of the details of the County Courts Bill,
which proceeded on the opposite principle, and would not only
continue imprisonment for debts in execution, but even extend
its operations to debts of smaller amount. Upon the whole,
he thought it would be expedient to postpone the further
consideration of that Bill until the other Bill, to which he had
referred, had been brought before the House.
MONTE VIDEO AND BUENOS AYRES.

Mr. EWART Slid he did not know whether it was in the

power of the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the
Treasury to answer the question of which he had (riven him
notice, with respect to the war between Buenos'Avres and
Monte Video. A vast amount of property was at stake. He
believed he was justified in saying that the Rigkt Hon. Baronet
had stated, some time since, that it was desirable that some
interposition should take place, on the part of the French, the
British, and the Brazilian Governments, for the purpose of
putting an end to the war. Since that time, the fears of
British subjects had increased by the continuance of the war.
It had been stated by General, Rosas, that he could not be
answerable for the safety of the property cf British subjects, or
of their persons. In a battle which had recently taken place, the
Monte Videans, contrary to general expectation, had been victo-
rious, but this victory had only tended to prolong the war, not to
bring it to an end. He wished to ask if the Right Honourable
Baronet could hold out any hopes of intervention on the part
of the British and the French Governments, for the purpose
of bringing the war, now raging between Monte Video and
Buenos Ayres, to a termination, and opening the commerce
of the River Plate.

Sir 11. PEEL regretted that the war between Monte Video
and Buenos Ayres still continued, characterised, as that war
was, by the most revolting atrocities ; and looking to the spirit
in which that war had been conducted, he was afraid that
there was little chance of its speedy termination. In every
case in which any violation of the rights of nations had takeii
place, with regard to British subjects it was the determi-
nation of the Government to give protection to its subjects,
even by a recourse to force, if necessary ; but so long as
there was no violation of the law of nations, he W 23 not pre-
pared to interfere. There could be no doubt but that it
was extremely desirable that these hostilities should cease.
England and France had offered their intervention to the
two belligerent Powers, and that intervention had been
accepted by one of them. France, he had every reason to
believe, took the same view as England did of this subject. N
doubt it was possible, by a forcible intervention, to put an end
temporarily to these hostilities ; but then they must be prepared
to take military possession of the country, and to provide
for its internal government, for, as soon as their force should
be removed, hostilities would be renewed. The precedent, too,
would be dangerous, for other powerful States, sanctioned by
our example, might take upon themselves to interfere in the
domestic politics and internal arrangements of States subordi-
nate to them ; therefore they ought to pause before they inter-
fered in such a manner.
Mr. M. GIBSON admitted the justice of the Right Bon.
Baronet's remarks as to the impropriety of direct interference
but he wished to ask if the Government littl taken care to
pro-
vide means to ensure the safety of the persons and property of
British subjects in Monte Video and Buenos Ayres.
S:r. R. PEEL said that there was a British naval force in
the River Plate, and which would afford all practical protec-
tion to British subjects and property.

IRISH ESTIMATES.
In answer to a question from Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would
bring on the Irish Estimates on Friday.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Sir 11. PEEL stated, in answer to Mr. Shed, that the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill would not be discussed this evening.
If there was time befora ten o'clock his Hon. and Learned
Friend (the Attorney-General) would, in moving the second
reading, state the object of the Bill ; but he would take care
that there should be an opportunity afforded of considering the
Bill at a future stage some other evening.

DUTY ON STAVES.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE said he felt it his duty to take this
opportunity of calling the attention of the House and the
Government to one branch of the trade of the country,

which, if prompt measures were not taken by the
Government to support it, would be utterly and
completely destroyed, he meant the cooperage trade. lie
had to express his regret that no alteration had taken place on
the duty on staves. It was a question of much im-
portance, and if the Government did not intimate its inten-
tion of taking it up themselves, some other member would do so.
He would not go into the details, but merely state the principal
points of the subject. In consequence of the manner
in which the timber duties had been arranged in 1842,
by which a disadvantage sus duty had been left on
staves imported into the country which furnished the raw
materials fur the coopers' trade, while the duty on
staves imported from North America into our colonies was
entirely abrogated, the cooperage trade at home was nearly
destroyed. Even manufactured casks from the United States
were introduced at a duty of ad valorem, into the colonies,
in consequence of which the exports of casks into the colonies
were put an end to. The British cooper was, therefore,
deprived of the trade with the West Indies, because he was
not able to compete with his American rival. If this had taken
place on the principle of free trade, he would not com-
plain, but he complained that it was not properly
applied. But the colonial trade was not alone ruined,
the foreign trade was likewise destroyed. It must
be obvious that this must be the case. The cooper
now paid between 60 and 70 per cent. ad valorem, en staves
imported into this country. In consequence of this heavy duty
they could not export casks, and he believed that foreigners were
able to undersell the home manufacturer in the home market.
'This was not the result of any natural advantages on the part
of foreigners. When they paid between 60 or 70 per cent.
upon foreign casks, it was impossible the trade could exist
under those circumstances. The consequence was that
ruin was impending on the coopers. The journeymen employed
in London, nearly 500, were not fully employed.—( Hear.)
The coopers of London were a most respectable class, aed he
entreated the Government to take the subject into their con-
sideration. There was no question of revenue involved—
(Hear)—for the whole amount obtained was not more than
20,000/. It was a question of arrangement, not of revenue ;
arid he intreated the Government not to allow the coopers to
be crushed. The duty on furniture now had been
reduced, to the great advantage of the country, and
instead of being undersold by foreigners in Liverpool,
they became an exporting country in furniture.
lie hoped they el ould maturely consider the effect of those
duties on this valuable branch of our trade, before they de-
clared their intention not to alter the duty on foreign staves.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the statements of the Right Hon.
Gentleman were greatly exaggerated. Ile seemed to censure
the Government on the ground of certain allegations made by
a certain class of traders. He (Mr. Gladstone) should like to
know on what ground the Right Honourable Gentleman
had made l is statements. So far es the law
was concerned the traste was much better than it had
been when the Right Honourable Gentleman was President
the Board of Trade, and when he had made no proposition in
their behalf. He ( Mr. G.) gt anted that the case of the
coopers was a serious one, and that the whole trade
in wood was under serious disadvantages. He admitted
that the reduction of the timber duty, for which his Right
Honourable Friend had been so censured on the other
side of the House as an improvident sacrifice of revenue, was not
sufficient to place the workers in wood in this country in a po-
sition to stand on an equal footing with the rest of the world.
But the coopers had derived considerable relief from the
the operation of the law of 1842, though he did not
eay their case was of sucli a nature as to preclude its being
again brought under the consideration of the House. The
Right lion. Gentleman had stated that the charge on the im-
portation of foreign staves was sixty or seventy per cent—that
was a great exaggeration. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed there
was a very short supply of staves from the Baltic ; and that the
trade was greatly embarrassed in consequence of the high
price. But colonial staves were never lower in price than they
were at present, and the trade was consequently in a better
state for competing with the Americans than it was five
years ago. With regard the export trade, it might be relieved
by the repeal of the duties or by the adoption of a system
of substitution—a system of working in bond, which was under
the consideration of the Government. He thought all diffi-
culties might be removed by allowing the parties to work in
bond for export till the other descriptions of workers in wood
were put in a better position.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended the statement of his
Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere). Petitioners to that
House complained that, by the alterations made in the law,
they were suffering great distress, and his Right Hon. Friend
then put it to the Government whether, when
considering the Customs' Duties, they wonld leave
out the question of the duty on staves. It was
very obvious that great injury was inflicted upon our
own merchants by the present duty. It was not so much a
misapplication of the principles of free trade as an application
of the principles of monopoly and protection for the benefit of
foreigners. Having made these remarks, he would now put a
question to the Right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on another subject. In the course of Isis financial
Statement, the Right Hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the
article of chicory in connexion with that of coffee, and an-
nounced his intention of proposing an additional duty on that
article. Perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman would state in
what way he meant to proceed, whether or not he meant to
introduce a Chicory Bill.—( Laughter. )
Mr. HUME thought the question which had been intro-
duced by the Right Hon. Gentleman was one of very great
importance. The trifling sum derived from this source ought.
not to stand in competi ion with the employment of coopers in
so many large cities in the empire. He had one or two peti-
tions from Glasgow, and other places, in reference to this impost.
They said that the duty on colonial staves, which was in•
tended to be nominal, averaged from three to five per cent. on
the cost of the raw material. The duty on staves imported
from the Baltic was 33 per cent., from the United States, 66
per cent. on the cost of the raw material ; the duty on foreign
manufactured work, was 25 per cent, while it might be intro-
duced into the colonies, from the United States, free of duty.
With respect to the delay of the whale fishery it was a mat-
ter of deep regret to see the manner in which it had latterly
fallen away. At the present moment the United States had
496 ships engaged in the trade. Some time ago England
had nearly double that number, now she had not one-third.
This falling off did not arise from any want of energy on the
part of the shipowners or mariners, but arose solely from the
existence of bad laws. The only fault he found with the
schedule of the Right lion. Baronet, so far as the imperta-
lion of timber went, was, that he did not go far enough. All
the raw material for manufactures should be allowed to be
imported duty free. The want of employment, of which all at
present so loudly complained, arose solely from bad laws. This
Bill should not be allowed to pass without amendment. He
contended that great advantage had accrued to the timber
trade generally from a reduction of duties, and that ships were
now not only cheaper, but much superior, to what they had
been ten years ago.
Mr. AARON CHAPMAN said the lion. Gentleman
seemed to think that ships had never been so cheap or so good
since the days of Noah, as they were at the present moment.
With regard to the question before the House, he would ob •
serve that the value of the staves was at present extremely low,
and that the distress of the coopers was attributable to the want
of demand in the West Indies for coopers' goods, consequent
upon the diminished production of sugar and rum.
Mr. If urrr regretted that the Right lion. Gentleman op-
posite should have considered this a party question. It signi-
fied little to the cooper which party was in power. What
he complained of was, that he was placed in such a position
that it was impossible for him to gain his livelihood ; and he
appealed to the House to take his case into consideration. 'The
coopers of the United States could import their productions
into the West Indies free of duty, while the production of the
coopers of this country were subject to a duty of from 30 to 6
per cent. They had heard a great deal of protection, and
when certain articles were the subject of debate in that House,
there were not wanting plenty of advocates to stand up for pro-
tection. Now if any species of property was more entitled to
protection than another, it was labour. He trusted the ses
sion would not pass away without the adoption of some mea-
sure for redressing the grievances of which the coopers so
justly complained.
Lord SANDON believed the coopers were reduced to a
state of the greatest distress, in consequence of the recent alte-
rations. They were better workmen and their wages were
lower than the wages of coopers in the United States, but they
could not compete with the United States coopers as long as
the duty on staves was from 30 to 60 per cent. against them.
They were, in fact, giving a protection to the coopers of the
United States at the expense of the English cooper. If they
would follow the same course with regard to staves that they
had adopted with regard to mahogany at the time of the altera-
tion of the tariff, he had no doubt but that a similar reduction
of the duty would be followed by similar effects, and as the re-
duction of the duty on mahogany had brought back the cabinet-
making to this country, so would the reduction of the duty on
staves restore trade to the coopers.—( There was some confu-
sion created during the course of the Noble Lord's speech, oc-
casioned by the breaking in of one of the skylights of the House,
the brokers glass falling with a tremendous crash into one of
the galleries appropriated to the use of Members. Fortunately,
no one was near at the time, and beyond the breakage of glass
no damage was done.)
Sir JOHN HAMER trusted that the Government would
take the distressed state of the coopers into their serious con-
siderat ion.
Lord HOWICK said this was a most important proposition,
and ought not to be hastily considered. 'The Government was
thrown into this difficulty by their own inconsistency, and by
endeavouring to tinker up and " potter" the system of restric-
tion, the principle of which they had long since abandoned.
He certainly had voted against the reduction of the timber
duties, and given it his strenuous opposition, but it was because
the Government plan took largely from the revenue, without
conferring adequate benefit on the consumer. But he was
most anxious then, as well as now, to get rid of these restric-
tive duties altogether.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
reduction on the timber duty had been considerable, and had
been, he believed, attended with advantage to the community.
Mr. EWA RT advocated the abolition of the duty altogether.
Customs, and when the result of that inquiry would be made
had
been I3AR
directedlN G
iuntt oa (it tui ee ti nn
d ruecgt a or (fi ng e aonf the q
uoi rffiy which
c e rs of
known to the House. (So much noise prevailed in the House
at the time, that the precise import of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man's observations did not reach the gallery. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under-
stood to reply, that the inquiry had taken place, but the result
had not yet been attained. The character of the individual
whose conduct had been made the subject of inquiry had,
however, in no degree suffered from that inquiry.
C‘7, Uhl
,iS,ceiTri
cON‘a,llaglsr:Se
e'
‘tlvnLe,
vLaef.rt r
The House then went into Committee on the
i
na snlinghtti,.dgirseceusinnion_
o n Te
hl
aau cs
el as
u •ste sa
nudpst
portant or interesting.
Clauses 7,8, and 9 were agreed to, after a few words from
Mr. Hume, Mr. Ricardo, and Mr. Foster.
Clauses 10 and 11 were then agreed to with a few veibal
amendments.
On clause 12 being put,
Mr. EWART said he thought that foreign coffee and cocoa
should he reduced to the same rate as that upon colonial coffee
and cocoa.
Mr. BARING was anxious that this subject should receive
the attention of the House. There was an ether subject to
which he wished to call the attention of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite. 'There was a clause in the Bill which stated
that persons sworn before the Surveyor-General, and who had
given false testimony, should be liable to be prosecuted for
perjury. Nosy, a case occurred—he would not mention the
names of the parties—from which it would appear that the
assent of the Commissioners of Customs should be given. if a
person swore falsely, which was useful to the revenue and
against another party, he could not be prosecuted without the
consent of the Commissioners; but if lie swore what was
wrong as against the revenue, he might oe prosecuted without

larger during the years of low duty, than during the years of
high duty. The average exportation of British woollens from
1816 to 1819, the years of high duty, was 8,127,0001. per year.
The average importation of the same commodity during
the corresponding three years of high duty, from 1820 to 1823,
was 6,014,000/. From 1821 to 1824, the South Down wool
averaged at 2s. per lb. ; Kent wool, Is. 76d. ; Highland wool,
2s. 16d. NIV these were the three years of low duty. During
the years 1820, 1821, and 1822, the three years of high duty,
South Down wool averaged at l s 3frd. per lb.; Kent wool at Is.
I ; and Highland wool at Is. 46d. In 1823 the duty was
reduced from 62. to Id. per lb. The lowest price of wool for
the last 2.5 years was, in 1829, when South Down wool aver-
aged 7d.. per lb., and Kent wool 92. In the same year,
21.000,000 lbs. of foreign wool were introduced, being a much
smaller quantity than in any former year. This, in the very
year that home-grown wool was lowest in price, the smallest
quantity of foreign wool was introduced. In 1836, when the
prices of British wool were highest, there was the largest im-
portation of foreign wool. In 18e9, the price of South Down
wool, as he had already stated, was 7d. per lb., when so small
a quantity a foreign wool was imported; whilst, in
1836, when a large quantity of foreign wool was
imported, South leown wool sold for Is. 3d. per lb.
In 1836, instead of 21,000,0001b5. of foreign wool being
imported, there were no less than 64,000,0001b5., being the
largest amount imported for the twenty years preceding. The
conclusion to be drawn from all these facts must be obvious
and irresistible that the price of home-grown wool was
higher in those years when the duty on foreign wool was least,
and that when the duty on foreign was highest the price of
home-grown wool was lowest. Now, this might seem strange,
but let it be recollected that foreign wool and home-grown
wool were not rivals—that they were not articles in competi-
tion, and that, as they were mixed, in order to make a better
article, the sale of the one improved in proportion as the other
was more attainable, so that they might as well take the duty
off tea whilst the duty remained on sugar ; in order that the
reduction should be beneficial, it must be simultaneous on both.
He was sorry to have detained the Ilouse so long, but he
thought that, looking to the situation of the country, any injury
which the wool growers might suffer would be more than
counterbalanced by the good which would be done to the ma-
nufacturing interests by the measure.
Mr. MILES said he knew from experience that this duty
upon wool was looked upon in the light of a protection by the
growers. He had, sometime back, moved for extensive re-
turns, which would show the state in which- the British farmers
were placed, and prove the impossibility of their competing with
the foreign wool-growers. lie was sure that the quantity of
long wool imported into this country was not at all sufficient
to justify the abolition of this protection to the agriculturists.
If he looked to the imports of 1843, and compared them with
those of 1842, he would see an extraordinary increase in the
woollen manufactures. In 1843, the imports were 6,790,000
while in 1842 they were 5,195,000 lbs. The remission of those
duties would not at all benefit the consumer. He had most
anxiously sought for the returns to which he had alluded in
order that every information might be laid before the House.
With regard to the Australian colonies, wool was the staple
product which they exported to this country, and it had vastly
increased of late years. In the year 1831, the amount of
wool imported was only 2,493,337 lbs., while last year it had
increased to 17,483,0(8) lbs. ; and he thought this showed
that the protective duty was a stimulus to the farmers in that
colony. After what had occurred last year he was sorry to
see this duty taken away at the present moment, when the
agricultural interest were in some degree recovering ; and he
felt this regret the more when there were so many other ar-
ticles from which the duty might have been removed with
much less injury, which, he hoped, would he done eventually.
Mr. C. WOOD was glad to hear the Hon. Gentleman ex-
press the hope that those duties would be remitted. He
differed from the conclusions of the Honourable Gentle-
man, drawn from the data which he had given to that House.
The increase in the importation of wool ,from the Australian
colonies had been so enormous—the importation being, in
1831, two millions of pounds' weight, while in the last year it
had been upwards of seventeen millions--that they need not
fear any injurious effect from the remission of this duty.
Mr. SHEPPARD was understood to support the proposi-
tion of the Government.
Mr. DIVETT supported the abolition of the duty on wool,
not so much from the benefit it would confer on the Australian
colonies, as the impetus it would give to trade generally.
Mr. TROTTER supported the Government proposition, on
the ground that the greater the importation of foreign wool
into this country, the greater would be the consumption of
home-grown wool.
Mr. COLLETT, in supporting the Government upon this
proposition, expressed a hope that ere long they would extend
the principle upon which they were now acting with respect to
wool to the article of corn.—( Hear.)
Mr. ALDAN' said the lion. Member. for Somersetshire
( Mr. Miles) had stated that other duties midst have been re-
pealed which would have been more beneficial to the manufac-
turing interest. Now he (Mr. Aldam) knew that the manu-
facturers were of opinion that no duty could be repealed that
would produce the same loss to the revenue, that would be half
so beneficial to them as the repeal of the duty on wool.
Mr. DA RBY did not think the Hon. Member for Somerset-
shire was justified in saying that this abolition of the duty on
wool was a step in the way of free trade. He (Mr. Darby) be-
lieved it to be no such thing, or he never would have supported
the proposition.
Mr. LABOUCHERE reminded the Hon. Gentleman that
the First Minister of the Crown, in introducing his measure,
had stated that he acted on the principle of free trade, and
that Right Hon. Gentleman stated that if he did not carry that
principle out quite so rapidly as Hon. Gentlemen on the oppo-
site side of the House could desire, yet he acted upon that prin-
ciple in the measure which lie proposed. He (Mr. Labouchere)
heard that declaration with the greatest pleasure, and he be•
lieved that all the friends of free trade must have
heard it with the utmost pleasure. He, therefore, could
not listen to the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat
down, without reminding him that the first Minister of the
Crown had placed this measure upon a different footing than
that upon which the Hon. Gentleman now found it convenient
to place his support on the present occasion, lie (Mr. La-
bouchere) protested against the Hon. Gentleman asserting
that this measure had not been introduced by the Right Hon.
Gentleman in accordance with those sound principles of
liberal commercial policy, which the Right Hon. Gentleman
had so expressly announced on the part of her Majesty'y Go-
vernment.
Mr. DARBY explained.
Mr. LABOUCHERE explained• lie never mid the prin-
ciples of free trade should be adopted at once without any
regard to existing interests.
Sir. WARBURTON said he was glad to perceive the
genet al concurrence of the House with regard to this subject,
and he would not disturb the unanimity which prevailed by
any general discussion on free trade.—( Hear, hear.) The
home growers would now have to trust to their own energies,
which was a Letter ground to rely upon than any protection.—
( Hear, hear.) He rose merely to express the satisfaction hie
constituents felt at the abolition of the duty on wool, and to
thank the Government on their part.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said it would be unfortunate to have the ge-
neral concurrence expressed on this important measure of
relaxation disturbed by any differences upon other subjects.—
( Hear, hear.) He would not, however, shrink from the
general principle he avowed.—( Hear, hear.) The removal of
the duties on wool, coffee, and currants, was in conformity
with the general principles he professed—(Cheers)—because
they could be removed without producing an injurious effect on
existing interests. He adhered to all the principles he had
ever professed on the subject, and those measures were in con.
formity with them. His Honourable Friend admitted dis-
tinctly that he . thought, on the whole, this reduction
of the duty on foreign wool would be an absolute benefit to the
agricultural interest of the country, and yet he said he was
very sorry that the present time had been selected. He would
ask from his lion. Friend, whether he thought they would be
justified as legislators--as Ministers of the Crown—if, believ-
ing they could propose a measure which would enlarge the
sphere of manu'acturing industry and increase the export of
manufactures, and which would at the same time confer a po-
sitive benefit on the agricultural interests, as was conferred by
encouraging the growth of wool—he would ask from his candid
mind this admission, that they had performed their duty in se-
curing to the agricultural interest a positive benefit, though
amongst ignorant and prejudiced persons it might be doubted.
Mr. Al ILES explained.
Mr. S. WORTLEY expressed his satisfaction at this mea-
sure of the Government. It would not only not be an injury
to the agricultural interests of the country, but he believed it
would be for their advantage. Whatever might be the effect
of the measure, it was certain the old duty was neutralised by
the introduction of Australian wool.
The clause was then agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the Chairman reported pro-
gress.—The report to be brought sip on Monday next.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion of Sir R. PEEL it was ordered that after
Monday, .the 3d of June, orders of the day should have pre-
cedence of notices of motion on Thursdays.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was committed, pro forma, and ordered to be corn-
witted on Friday next.
COUNTY CORONER'S BILL.
The further consideration of the report on this Bill was fixed
for Monday, the 3,1 of June.
STAMP DUTIES BILL.
The Home then went into Committee on this Bill.
The several clauses having been agreed to, on the schedule
being read,
Mr. FORSTER moved the following scale of duty on ma-
rine assurance, as an amendment on that proposed by the Chan_
cellor of the Exchequer, via.:—
s. d.
On premiums under and not exceeding lOs 0 3
On ditto exceeding 10s. and not exceeding 205.
On ditto exceeding 20s.
On ditto on time risks, not exceeding six months
On ditto on time risks, exceeding six months 2 0
On mutual insurance policies
Dr. 130 WRING, in seconding the motion, trusted that his
Noble Friend would force it to a division.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
motion on the ground that it was the reduction of a duty for
the advantage of a particular class, The adoption of the pro-
position of the Noble Member was, in fact, to give up the duty
on insurance altogether.
Mr. HUME considered the tax upon insurances was a tax
upon prudence. The duty, not only upon marine insurances,
but upon fire and life insurances, ought to be reduced one-half.
Nro
--(Hear, from Colonel Sibthorp.) The revenue would be in-
creased
ef marine
arin
be insurances
y ch e aysas
Friendv proposed
u re. Theng.
that the principle which regulated the increase in the premium
didthhee ndouttycoorn-
,.t it? s l
i .
yto, t
reduce,
long distances to 25., and the Right lion. Gentleman proilbsed
to make it 4s. Ten years ago all insurances between England
and America were effected in England. Now, two-thirds of
these insurances were effected in America, because there no
duty was payable. The underwriters in London should be
placed upon the same footing as the underwriters in America,
to Australia, and in India. If they kept up the tax at all they
should keep it up as a moderate tax only.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no rea-
son to fear the competition of America with regard to these in-
surances. The competition which they had to fear was the
competition in small policies, which were effected in Hamburgh,
for short distances, and by lowering the duty on those policies
they would get all these insurances effected in this country,
Mr. WAWN, as the representative of a northern mari-
time borough, e ished to call their attention to the facts con-
nected with the North American trade—a trade principally
carried on in that borough (South Shields). These ships made
two voyages in a Year, and they were subject to the highest rate
of premium. Nos, he thought they ought to have some portion
of the relief which it was proposed to afford.
Colonel SIBTHORP, in allusion to what had fallen from the
lion. Member for Montrose, would impress upon his Right
lion. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of
reducing the duty on fire insurances. He wished the subject
had fallen into better hands ;' but he should certainly, on a
future occasion,
bring the subject before the attention of the
House. Ile was glad to hear his Right Honourable
Friend speak in praise of prudence, for the tax
on lire insurances was a tax upon prudence.-_( Hear.)
He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman should not for a
moment hesitate to make the concession sought for. He
thought the reduction would rather add to than diminish the
revenue. The duty ought to be taken off fire insurance as
well as marine insurance. Though he sat on that side of the
House, and generally voted with the Government, he would on
this question oppose the Right Hots. Gentleman through thick
and thin.—(Laughter. )
Mr. WARBURTON said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
ought to make his tax so low as to offer an inducement to all
persons t insure their property.
Sir C. BURRELL thought that if the duty upon iosurtan

scruple. He did not think that such a thing was ever in the
contemplation of those by whom the Act was passed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that in
the case to which the Right Hon. Gentleman referred, the
individual accused had given evidence of a conversation which
had taken place between him and two other persons. Two of
thoss parsons had been found guilty on their own confessions
of the offences with which they were charged ; and another
was found guilty on evidence independent of the party in ques-
tion. There was great anxiety to cast some reflection on the
evidence of this party, but the Government believed he gave
evidence worthy of credit. The subject was then referred to
the law officers of the Crown, who gave their opinion that it
was doubtful whether• proceedings for perjury could be taken
under the clause referred to, without the consent of the Com-
missioners. The law officers thought the point was one which
they ought not to waive in proceedings of this description, and
they caJled.on the Court to quash the proceedings which had
taken place. The Court did not accede to that, but on grounds
independent of the merits of the case, so that the question
was now Wore them. •

Mr. RICARDO called the attention of the House to a pe-
tition which had been presented from the City of London, on
the subject of the duty on foreign coffee. The Government
would not. conclude a treaty with the Brazils, because they
would not take slave-grown sugar. but they were ready to take
coffee, which was equally grown by slaves.—(Cheers.)

The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. EWART then proceeded to bring forward his motion,
of which he had given notice, that the duty on foreign coffee
and foreign cocoa be reduced to the same rate as the duty on
colonial coffee and cocoa. His proposition was, to make the
duty on foreign coffee fourpence, the same as that on the colo-
nial article; instead of sixpence per pound. He confessed his
propositiorrwas a blow aimed at the system of differential
duties—a system which he considered most unsound, and which
a gentleman connected with the Board of Trade, Mr. Porter,
had condemned in the strongest terms, prophesying that, in a
short time; in so extensive an article of consumption as coffee,
they must adopt the-only sound system, which was a system of
uniform duties, It might be saiti that his (Mr. Ewart's) pro-
position would le-sen the revenue, but experience had
shown that, by the reduction of -the duty on this article,
the consumption had so' increased, that the revenue had
also greatly increased. In 1801 the consumption was only
one ounce to each individual in the country, and at the present
time it amounted to seventeen ounces per head. Besides, by
these differential duties, it must be recollected, though the con-
sumer paid a higher price, the Exchequer was not benefited.
The Hon. Gentleman, after entering into some statistical de-
tails in support of his proposition, moved the insertion of the
words "fourpence" instead of " sixpence" in the clause ; and
with respect to cocoa, the consumption of which he showed
had equally increased by a reduction of duty, he moved that
it be reduced to one penny per pound.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the speech of the Hon. Gentlemanswould seem to be directed
against a person proposing a new differential duty, whereas he
thought that he ought to obtain the praise of the Hon. Gen-
tleman from his taking steps in the direction of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's own motion. With respect to the differential duties,
he considered that the inhabitants of the colonies, as British
subjects, had the same right of protection against foreign com-
modities, as-was given to British subjects at home on articles of
consumption,Which would operate against them. The Hon.
Gentleman had dwelt much on the increased consumption. In
1801 coffee was a beverage scarcely known out of the higher
orders of society, and it was a luxury even among them. The
effect of redncing.the duty hod been to extend the consnmp.
lion of this article-from a limited class to the whole community.
The Hon. Gentleman, and thosd who supported him, were de-
ceived if they imagined, now that coffee was an article of gene-
ral consumption, that a rednettAn of the duty would be. at-
tended with similar effects to that which took place at the
period to which he had referred.—( Hear, hear.) He would
not repeatehearguments which -he had already brought for
ward in favotir of a differential duty. He thought, however,
that no one who was not prepared altogether to abandon the
system of differential duties could consistently oppose the Go-
vernment proposal ; while it must be admitted by those who
were, that a great benefit was offered to, the community.
After a few words from Mr. RICARDO,

Mr. P. 'HOWARD said the colonies ought not to be re-
garded by the representatives of the people as alien from this
country. It should be recollected that the leading men in a
colony sacrificed many objects of ambition ; and if some com-
mercial advantages were not offered to them they could not be.
expected to remain contented. The House should never forget
the declaration of its-great opponent, Napoleon, that the colo-
nies were the wings which enabled this country to soar to
greatness.tßelieving that the amendment would not, if passed,
eventually benefit either this country or the colonies, he
should certainly give his vole against it.
Strangers, wt.re then. Ordered to withdraw and the House
divided, when there appeared— -
For Mr. Ewart's amendment 2B
Againit it ...
Majority against the amendment —ll
Mr. M. GIBSON complained that the amount of protection
extended to particular Interests appeared to' be measured by
their power and influence in that House. Cocoa, which was
a very weak' interest, •was left with one penny protection ;
coffee, which was a stronger interest, received twopence ; sugar
had a much stronger protection.; that,tremendous giant, torn,
was not dealt with at all. He knew the Right Hon. Gentle-
man would indignantly repudiate the idea of being influenced
by any such considerations, but be thought some explanation
of the grounds of the differential duties was necessary to enable
the House-to understand the subject.—( Hear. )
Mr. GLADSTONE 'said they had heard of late years of
machines fir calculating- but he was not aware of any machine
for calculaing the grounds of differential duties.—(Hear.) It
might certainly have Occurred to the Hen. Gentleman that the
relative value of the different articles would form a ground of
differential duty.

Mr. BRIGHT said that whatever rule might be adopted on
these matters he was convinced of this, that that of substrac-
tion from the public and addition: to private climes was the
ruling one:—( Hear.) '
Mr. M; GIBSON said that -the stronger the party the
greater was the indisposition to deal with it.
Dr. BOW RING thought the argument of those who wanted
to obtain reductioni for the consumer had not been answered.
The great interest they ought to look to was the consuming
interest.—The item was then agreed to.
On the next item. with respect to the duty en currants,
Mr. HUMPHREY said be thought the duty on currants
ought to be fourteen, instead of fifteen shillings, in order to
avoid the fraction of a pound. •
Mr. HUME said the duty on currants ought to be made as
low as possible. He was sure that, by doing so, the consump-
tion of the article would be greatly increased.
After a few observations from Mr. A. CHAPMAN, the
item was agreed to, as were several other items.
Upon the item raising,the duty on plums preserved in sugar
to sixpence per pound,
Mr. Htlfteturnsr and Mr.' Hawes contended against
such an extravagant impost-
Mr WARBURTON, while they were •on the subject of
fruits, wished to ask a question of the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Kent. He had, some years ago, sat upon a
Committee with that Right. Hon. Baronet, to consider a pe-
tition of the L.-tilt-growers of Kent, praying for an increase in
the duty on apples. The Committee had reported against an
increase or. the duty. In the following year the Right Hon.
Baronet bicame a member of the Cabinet ; the new tariff was
proposed, and the duty on apples was increased from 5 per cent.
ad valorein, to 6d. a bushel. Now it was rather too bad, in a
new tariff; which was brought forviard with the avowed object
of lowering the duties, to find that on such an article as apples
the duty had been raised?
Sir 11. 'PEEL thought these discussions offered no great
temptation
to a Minister to reduce duties. The worthy Alder-
man, encouraged by his success' in supporting the turbot and
lobster interest—(Laughter)—had now taken up with the pud-,
d'ng interest. With regard to the'duty on apples, it had been
generally understood that, in order to induce the House of
Lords to pass the Bill reducing the duty on fruits, Lord Mel-
bourne had consented.to re consider the ,question of apples,
with a view of afferding apples additional protection ; and, in
accordance-with that understanding, the duty had been raised.
He could assure the Hon. Gentleman that when his Right
lion. Friend the Member for Kent accepted office, he had
made no stipulation in regard to apples.
Mr. F. BARING said that Lord Melbourne .had engaged
that the subject should be re-considered, and he considered
that that pledge had been fully redeemed by the appointment
of the Committee of which the Hon. Member for Keadal
had been i-membei.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, the subject had been fully dis-
eu3sed in 1642; and considered it was 'useless to revive that
discussion.
Mr. WARBURTON codsidered' that his statement re.
mained untoe;hed. The Committee had reported against any
increase in the duty, and in defiance of that recommendation,'
the duty proposed by the Right Hon. Member for Kent, which
had been rejected by the. Committee, had been imposed.
Sir EI33IrARD KNATCHBULL had certainly misunder-
stood what had fallea. froin *Lord' Alelhitirise on the occasion
alluded to. He, as well ILT several others, had understood the
Noble Loll to say, that there should ben increase in the duty
on apples. .
Air. BRIGHT said, that the article of, apples was not the
only article of the produce .of the county of Kent which had
been carefully protected in the tariff. Canary seed, which was
almost exclusively produced in the county of Kent was also
protected 1)y a high duty.—(Cries of " Question, Question!")
Sir 11. PEEL said there was another article, the produce of
the county ,of Kent-the article of hops.. The, reduction of
the duty On foreign hops was five times as great as the, increase
of the duty on appTei or canary seed.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHREY wished to draw their atten-
tion back to plemi.(A rough.) They were about to increase
the duty from 11:- is. 6d.i per cent. to 21. 15s. per cent. He
''eci to knoW the reon of this increase ?
NCELLOR -ifi'e-EXCIIEQUER explained
. . .
—stion of the construction put upon the
Plums were subjected to a
'ubjected to a higher
-I in sugar.

NV La...

The Car.,._
that it was merely' a
law by the Trea-ury
low duty—fruits preserved In sugar
rate. Recently plums hidTheen imported preierve..,
The Treasury cousidered they were liable to the higher rate
duty ; and it was to give effect to that opinion, that the pre.
sent proposal had been made. They-were, in fact; in the
same categery as confectionary.
Mr. HU,ME said that confectionary imported from fureign
countries was subject to a duty of 6d per lb.', but if it were
imported (rove the colonies the duty was only Id. per lb.
Now, woui4 plums imported from British possessions be ad-
mitted at a duty of Id. a lb. ?
Mr. GLADSTO;sIE said plums woisid not be admitted at a
duty of; ld. ham the' British colonies, but they did not consti-
tute an artjoe,of colonial export:
!Jr. CCILLEIET would move as an amendment that tho duty
be continued as,n
atlreseot.
!Ir. Al errna
lIREY would divide against the
4

.withlraw, but no div• ion
eau e.
Strangers , tver,e then ordered to
' took place, - , , . Is
great satis-
The elapse was.tben agreed to. .
Mr. GLAD4TQfIg then rose, and said he had
LUC le total
faction' koposing to the Hoextinction of the im-
post on the ratio material ,of one of the most ancient of our ,
manufactures-,---the duty
.on the, importation of foreign wool.
The facts_of the case had been so often stated to the House,
that he did not think it would be proper, at that late hour, to
trespass long oh their attention. Ile would, however, observe
that the present amount of revenue derived froM this impost
was insignificant, when compared with the advantages which its
abolition would 'confer on our manufactures. He would not
argue that the measure he viakabout to propose would inflict
no loss upon agriculture, nor would be for a moment admit that
agriculturists were called upon to, make any sacrifice to the
general interests. The ground he took was, that the abolition
of this dujy would be a decided benefit, and advantageous to
the comm.upity at large.—(Hear, hear.) He did not say that•
the measure would not, in some degree, affect various classes
of wool-growers, •but the stimulus of competition would, he
thought, rather
_increase the price of the raw material. With
regard
ard tc, timwOol of Australia,. he did not say but it would
haad9lress'ng erect
°II
it, but it would be trifling and inap-
i.reciable'in amount if compared with the amount of benefit
which th
gst engaged in manufactures or agriculture would re-
ceive. Now, as he said before
House ate any length, lie would not trespass on the.
by. Xclve'rtiue to
„...7,1,,p0n
,i),, . az
iilrr.F.,tltisv founded,masightform bautwould
-; -Ktn. Vele* li:ek. mr.,— w „ the general principles,
correcti Lets
tolerably state
a few
it ,ment. .
Previoixs ,triAhe year 1619
tom,,
.-duty-oa the inipertatini 0,
The
foreign , there existed a moderate
i ; t.t present existed. The :tut then vc°°l'
lower than that which
( altered in, 1.1i1;?4 ~tofid., r duty
Awls. ! Is. per cwt. It was
G TwntlY imposed. New,'Wliat he Waritegillocrh
K....... duty
bee-
.,-see years in which the duty was their highest :
<.,- .14e1 ptibp wErellowest for home- was su-
that
grow
ngwosoton
,hreeign
lop ef_Nritlsh -Manufactures were, as might be expected.