The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-17 00:00:00

mess concluded by expressing, his hope, that as a
Peer of that Udine, and as a Prince of the Blood,,
-warmly attached to the interests of his country,
he should be excused for having trespassed so
'long 0,, their Lordships'-attention with reference
I° a subject of vital importance to the empire.—
(iear,.hear !)
The
Marquis of BUCKINGHAM considered the
gUestion to bel not whether the Catholic nen-
,
Poll Was right or wrong ; but whether that Re,
iigion-being Such as it was, any good reason could
be sate-vu for excluding its Members from 1
legis-
lative power in common with their. fellow-sub-
jects. -lie *observed that the opposers of this
I
nleasure upon every new occasion changed their
'.
Found of opposition, and took refuge behind
nee new hedge of intolerance.—(Hear, hear l)
7--It was not long since that a man was legally
'Punishable for hearing Mass. It was net until
4
le year 1773 that the Irish Parliament found
out that a great number of Catholic subjects were
i ready to defend their country. A test was then'
Proposed for their relief ; but that same Parlia-
t'leut did not think proper to complete what
i Public spirit had begun. They refused to pass
a •
the Catholics.
11111 enabling
nit arty-ninelta years ; and in the next Parliament it
,ii.s.pfoend necessary to pass a Bill enabling Ca-
g9 Iles to hold leases for much longer terms than
~, Years. In the year 1306, that legislative mea-
e Passed Ivhich enabled a Catholic to fight his
ilintrY's battles with a prospect of honourable ad-
.i...'neenent • and yet, althoueh he was allowed to
,B"ed.s blOod.he was denied a share in the legis-
;lotion, he was 'allowed to labour in the field, but
e Wag excluded from a participation in the hat--
St. Step by step, however. had they allowed
'e Catholics a portion of the privileges of the
i•
+°ostitution'; and (lie question was, where, should
i'*sB€ privileges stop as regarded the Catholics ?
ce Would say, that they should stop at the limit
ot 1 the Constitution ; at the limit. prescribed by
'tribe law ; and on this head he denied that the
Catholics were excluded merely on account of
thEiz. religion. Referring to the language used
upon the conference between both Houses of
1 arliainent, when they discussed the celebrated
measure of Conformity, a .conference conducted
toq by the ables-Cruel' of the day, he found that
lione were legally_ excluded from office but those
whO. had been guilty of bribery, extortion, or
sot. • .
' do“e other crime known to the. law. Such being, as he contended; ...the principle of the Constitu-
he
he might be asked, were all Catholics to
line indiscriminately admitted, because they had
,°t offended against the law ? Hw He answered cc No,
net 1
ii, they ought not to be 'excluded from any office
_ihe filling of which by a Catholic would not be
m, engerous to the State." He repeated that they
vilad never been excluded as Catholics, but for'
e.';rlain specific reasons said to endanger the
~.
_. li,`.4te• I t remained, therefore, for those who
e 'shed the exclusion to be continued, to shew the
istence of the same danger upon which the
[ the had been originally founded-. From
, e 4efortnatien down Wards it would clearly ap-
peal. that he was correct in asserting that they
ItN, ,
for never excluded as Catholics. Who was it„l
(I - ttistance that Elizabeth, in a moment of great.,
-,a,,, .'
iNia°,r) appointed her Lord Warden of the
11.4,,,tc,Ne5?-----LoPd Clifford, a Catholic.--,(Hear,
Offi' •)---Who was it she appointed her principal
dzoce.r to resist the S2anish, the Catholic Arma-
(ii:"Lord }lnward, of Effingham, a Catholic.
to a.r,) hear!) Nay, who was it- she appointed
44
fi ' -.1
• it •
110, • ."° ICe so net], that is thought too
've f I ' • -•
-i , r u: to entrust it to a subject, and which
Ili'°w in commission, the office of Lord
(4'll Adenira.l? That same Lord Howard
(ili ;11Ingliatti, L- (Cheers.).— In the time of
frpt:les the Second the Catholics were excluded
1'44,, Power in . consNpence of the discovery of
tkt„;loateS's plot, though this exclusion did not
irNti to Ireland ;- but it was argued that if the
„..4''t llieasure should pass, the Catholic would
.Ikt into the Constitution and sap, its vitals.
the ''et.l in th.tirne of Charles the Second, when
q .
tiNi. g -was:- in his-heart. a Catholic, when,the
to tai - '4'as a Catholic, and when the Successor
11,4 e throne was avowedly a Catholic, they
the 'c',l}{)t able toe-pa:event their exclusion. Was
zeal c )uttli of England .weaker now ? Was its
'Peak °°ler, or.wer.e the Powers of its. defenders
the (;lande James . 11. attempted to establish
lirNolic religion without the sanction of Par-
Oiost rl, tl. and with, respect to the.-penal laws, the
14 ',severe of them' were not passed until after
Ily irce of Ityswic. By the Treaty of Kilken-
-4gi4llwas declared that no oath but the oath of al-
-111(tv
„g,e should be tendered to Irishmen, and that
'.4l.iic'.r.iutild have-a free -Parliament, composed of
lt,k'lles as well as Protestants. He considered
t:atho'll;) that down to the Revolution at least, the
Ipsit,ei 'es were not.excluded upon constitutional
tt'ry
ores.. Having looked at the constitutional his-
-14/4 theexcludinglaws, be came tothe Oath of
tl4k eillaCY ; and he: begged to ask how. was it
werill_bY, ourselv.es? Originally in Scotland,
twig sills and-others refused to take it with-
In4lt'' explanation of its terms. The Govern-
or
_said---" We will give you no explanation ;
111,11nanst take the oath, but you may make any
4ceo`r...:t. reservation you please." The oath was
No gi.'ngly taken.; and at the present day a cer-
Nttrrln was observed upon dissolving the
trlitt -Assembly so that it should not be ati-
lt bed that the Ki .0. was head of the Church.--
Ile
tll,7l!,,been arg9ed, however, by the opposers of
bp ii, that a Catholic .was not to be believed
oo 1..,,
Th nib
.oath at all-
-14 4, e tilshop of LONOON begged to explain.
14() b"a,(l. never asserted that a Catholic was not to
Ndeelif!yed upon_ his oath. Ile had only Con-
tli
,o tbat when a Catholic took such an oath as
t4ik).,:tlt of Sepremacy, he necessarily- retained
Ileti,`,
~ that nothing itr that oath should conflict
theVolAilis duty to his own. church.
the44everaeir: of BUCKINGHAM resumed..—He thanked'
Illi 'bY the R prelate. for Ins explanation. It was contended
~_ pd
a➢
~1,.. everted Prelate, that the oath -necessarily im:
14ee:til. the °v b But st.irely'the Reverend Prelate could not have
I,tp.x2a_tlut•e'-e,pwonhit(ltthe
einzitthifeoirteaorfil7.93 had been imposed kt, the
thrttiz t.;) his exereki, h Ireland, to be taken, drpcpured,
t, e elective franchise. It was an oath
roe-Uf;'-'
'NI bV. Parilia.,
mild if Parliament did not believe th
ka,Q-.0e.14 b,,
it,
4,1 e Alto.
' neueved, the... dinctin,, t • e
ei , 4.1,t_ I loess read tare oati • - ' , 1 w” a mockery. Tact
)'l' 01" ''''-' declares a ' 1 in-iposed by toe'A e.t.a l ;;;43,wineh
cailt,,, .4t mere fir, . :at the pers9n. taking it:abjured the rin
12 -
-I".#l6,i'fr rniget be cOMMitted •up , 6 , -.,••• nof one
"zqt ' the -- , , thnt no.at, in ir i • • '":1 -i-T-0...- --.
,ii_ground of
0,..„.„
.. r 1 vncked coul be 'Justlfittl
'Ye the po,,e ;_;'-"":.--c to any Church ; that he eil
t 01 be mfallible; that he believed no sin

could be committed at the mere will of any rum ; afuLthati
forgiveness could not b 3 Obtained Nit by repentance and atone-
ment ; that he would to his utmost defend the lawful posses_
Sion of property within the kingdom ; and that he disclaimed
any intention or desire to subvert the present Dtablishment.
The Legislature had denied, and the Priests had allowed the
Catholics to take this oat:: ; and the Parliament could not pcs-
sibly say the Catholic was not to be believed after having pre-
pared an oath as a test of his credit. Having said thus much tmon
the principle of the Bill, which he trusted would be adopted by
thei: Lordships, he should say but little as to the securities. If
their Lordships thought those securities insufficient, they might
add others; but, fbr his own part, 'he thought none at all were
necessary. He appealed to their Lordships' justice, to their
feelings; lie would ask, was there any one of them who could
lay his hand upon his heart and say he believed this measure
would not ultimately pass ? It - came recounend&lby'one'of
the branches of the .Legislature ; and if it must pass, sooner or
later, where was the utility of putting it off? Were we in
such a state of perfect tranquillity as to afford the loss of the
present opportunity to conciliate He thought the justice and
the policy of the measure so clear, that he should not trouble
their Lordships any further, except to express his hearty con-
currence in the present Bill.
The Bishop of CIIESTE:i said that he had long
and anxiously considered this subject, and that
as a Protestant and as a• Bishop he felt himself
bound to oppose the second reading of this bill,
and any measure that should give further eman-
cipation to the Roman Catholic subjects of this
realm. But it was not the result of his consider-
ations, but the reasons that their Lordships were
to regard, and his reasons he would therefore
state. In the first place the Roman Catholics
were already in possession of complete religious
toleration. Religion was a matter between God
and a man's own conscience. 'But if any par-
ticular religiotis establishment set forth 'claims
which, enctiCathed on the rights and liberties
of other professors of the same religion; that
was a good reason why they should be re-
strained ftom enforcing such aggressive
He did not object to the principles or conduct of
any individual Roman Catholic, but be objected
to the religion itself: he objected not to the
but to the power of the Roman Catholics 'to meet
Protestants on equal terms of charity. It was a
doctrine of the Church of Rome that there was
no salvation beyond the pale of that church. If
the :members- of the church did not believe this,
what was the meaning of holding such a doctrine
as a brutent fulmen In• the next place, the
Roman Catholics considered the, Pope as the
Head of • their Church ; but we Protestants, cif
the Church of England, regarded the King as
the Head of our Church. According to the laws
established.at the glorious Revolution, the King,
every Peer on taking his seat, and every Member
of Parliament was required • to take an oath to
support the Church and State. The present Bill
was irreconcileable with the ConstitutiOit and
with the oath which Members- of Parliament
took. The Protestant. swore that the Bishop
of Rome had no jurisdiction within this
realm ; the -Roman Catholic swore that he
had. 'This was... an anomaly which. he could
not agree to. Every oath and subscription would
be altered by the present Bill. The Pro-
testant Religion was the foundation of the
British Constitution. But if the Bill should be
passed, they had no reason to believe that the
Roman Catholics of Ireland would be satisfied
with it. In the reign of the late reveled Mo-
narch, in the year 1793, concessions to the great-
est extent had been made ; but the demand had
grown with that which it fed 'upon. He felt it
a duty to himself and to their Lordships to state
that he .had. understood that Jesuits had come
from Liege to Stonyhurst. If this Bill should
pass, what would prevent a of Jesuits from
being established in this town ? Exiles from every
quarter would finda home on the British shores !
But what weighed with
,him more than any other
consideration was, that Roman Catholicism had al-
ways been the parent and nurse of arbitrary power,
while Protestantism had always been the parent of
liberty. In France,Spain,Portugal, and other conn-
tries wheretheßomanCatholic religion had prevail=
ed,despotism had been maintained:ln Switzerland,
Holland, and other Protestant countries, liberty
and Protestantism had gone hand in hand.- The
love .of liberty, civil and. religious, had been tlfe
first sentiment which he had imbibed, and it
would be the . last which he would abandon.
They owed it to the, memory of the great men
who had gone before them for the last 200. years,
to resist this innovation. His wish and prayer
was, that the vote of their Lordships would pre-
' vent the return of the agitation of this.question ;
he anxiously hoped that-their Lordships would
not sanction any thing that could by possibility
endanger by- its consequence-the Protestant reli-
gion as established in this country.—(Hear !)
• The Bishop of NORIViCIi 'said; that he -had
never acted in that' House as a party man. He
conceived that a Bishop ought not to act in that
House but where religious matters were involved.
He had' frequently before advocated the.ques-
tion-then-under discussion, and humanly speak-
ing, that would be the last time that he should
ever have an opportunity of addressing their
Lordships upon it.—(Hear, hear !)--He would
then ask, what was the Chutch which it was
proposed to secure by these securities ? Would
any Noble, Lord, or Right Reverend Prelate
venture to say, that it was that Church of which
he was the legislator and head, who had de
clared that his kingdom was not' of this world.
(Hear, hear !)—That was' not a kingdom-- which
admitted of any harsh, severe, or 'uncharitable
opinions upon others. If there were no other pas-
sage in the Bible te shew this,that•passage was suf-
ficient where Jesus reprimanded hiS.disciples, who
had falsely imagined that their religion was to
be promoted -by art immediate judgment frOM
heaven—by telling theM that they knew' -not
what manner of religion they. were 'of.—(Hear,
hear !)—:lf the Church could not be maintained
without imposing restraints, and disabilities on
milliOn-s of our fellOw`subjects, 'it was a. 'c!rcum•-
stance which might Well alfOrdgtound of Suspi-
cion- as to the soundoess of the establiShMent.—
He for one did not, believe that the Established
Church required such assistance. - None could be
more anxious to support the Establishment than
himself; but the most Christian means of sup-
porting it were not by maintaining harSh and in-
tolerant legislative enactments, but by exercising
that- Christiani kindness, and eandout; and for..
bearani.se, which were best calculated to render.
its doctrineseffictuar.'

.•
Lord REDESDALt, Lord HAtta-os' rt vvonci three
Bishops, rose at the same moment, but the LORD

CHANctta.ort 'declared that he had hid terd
REDESDALE in his eye four hours ago.
Lord REDEspAce professed great -respect for
the body of Catholic peers ; but a3r it had been
repeatedly shown that in cases like the present
the tail governed the head, it was not at all cer-
tain that those-peerS ,spoke or. could control the
I sentiments of the .lower' and More mitnerons order
of the Roman Catholics. He. maintained that
' there was no satisfactory security for the esta-
blished Church but the exclusion of the Ca.-tho--
lics, and argued that this was an attempt by a
sidewirid to get rid of laws, the
_repeal of which
they dared not to .propose. Such were the Ist
and 2d of Elizabeth, directly in opposition to
this measure, which actually
:gave a jurisdiction
to the Pope. A royal family had been excluded
because it professed the Catholic religion ; and
why .were otheurprofessors of that faith .to be
treated with greater favour ? In 1793 the right
of voting was 'conceded ; but if that suffrage had
never been granted, the present Bill would never
have foundits way into this House : few used the lan-.
guage of emancipation but those members that were
returned.by Catholics. His Lordship further in-.
sisted that the present measure would increase
irritation; that if passed it would only lead to
further demands and further encroachments ; that
the laity had a strong interest to attack the emo-
luments of the establishment Co free themselves
from the payment of fees to their priests; and
that, as it would dissolve the alliance between
Church and State, religion would be.destroyed,
and the .national'morals undermined. r He con-
cluded by warning the House not to pass a Bill
that soon would make Catholicism the established
faith of Ireland, where already' a hierarchy ex-
isted anxious to seize upon the Archbishoprics,
the Bishoprics, Deaneries, and other Protestant
ecclesiastical preferments. -
Earl HArtitowny- felt more surprised by' the
tone of many of the Noble Lords who had preced-
ed him than by their arguinents .; in the Whole
course of which they contended that the Esta-
blished Church of this country was to be brought
into danger by the proposed concessions to the
Roman Catholics. Not yielding even to any of
the Noble and Reverend Bench in attachment to
the Established Church, or zeal for its preserva-
tion, yet
_he • could see no danger that could
possibly arise from the. Bill then before the
House. Could he be persuaded that any risqtie
might be incurred—that the security of the State
could be compromiSed ;—could it be made evi-
dent that any of those consequences so ap-
prehended must arise froth the passing of the
Bill into a law, so far from supporting it, he
would not only vote with the Noble and Learn-
ed Lord for postponing it six months, but for its
utter and irrevocable rejection. But, instead of
danger, he contended safety to Church and State
would grow out of the measure. Amongst the
Many objects sure to 'be attained by the Bill, it
was not an unimportant one that all bad feelings
would be thereby terminated and removed. The
principle of the Bill he apprehended to be,. to
grant. to the Roman Catholics every thing that
could .be granted consistent with the security .of
the Church and State, and he Would maintain, that
not one of their Lordships should vote agahist
the 13111, 'who not prepared to_prove that
nothing ought to be conceded by establishing
the existence of danger from concession. Much
had been said of the intolerant tenets of the.
Roman Catholic Church and Prelates; and
the - doctrine of exclusive salvation. Were
they Roman Catholics only who maintain-
ed that doctrine ?-7--(Hear, heat, hear !)
Could the .Protestant--the PresbyterianChnith
deny having- professed similar doctrines ?
tests had been entered into by the latter against
what they called damnable doctrines—and these
were the'tenets of, Presbyterianism. Up-to the
period-of the Union'of Scotland to England they
remained unchanged. During the -discussion of
the Union a solemn representation was made. by
the Church of Scotland against that article which
provided 'for the security of the Church of Eng-
land on account of the guilt that would.thence
be incurred. There were'then in-Parliament 16
Peers and'4sTomfnoners Pr,esbyterians, and' an
English Ecclesiastical Peer declared that were
he to live to see that Union carried, he should
have outlived all the laws, and - nearly the-
Constitution of the country.. The Act
...of
Union did' pass into a law.. Both Houses of
Parliament-every place in: England were
thrown open to the Presbyterians, and more
was done, subsequently, . for promoting the
interests of the Established: Church than had
been done before.--(Hear !)—Were the Bill now
before the House to pass, not more than six or.
seven Roman Catholics would be eligible to seats
in that House ; and having thought it: his dafy to
inquire, he had-ascertained from . the beat autho-
rity that there did not exist the lutist remote pro-
bability.of more than .14 or 15 Members of
Roman Catholic Religion being. returned'to the
HOuSe of Con-Ifni:ins—land what dariker Was to be.
apprehended from that trifling nuinhe-r 16 that
containing, as it 'did, six' hundred and
fifty-eight Members? Besides,, the Protestant
Members would be alwaYs.mtich more under the
controul of their:constituents than the. Roman'Ca.
thanes. He knew that. the COnstitutiOn would
remain exeltisiVely Protestant, and that it could not
be-affected by anyineasuie of this kind. This mea-
sure came' before them recommended by the other
House of Parliarrient, arid therefore was entitled
to all their attention. There could 'be no objec-
tionin point of time.- In addition to the subject
of granting privileges to the 'Roman Catholics,
waS,connected anothesubject, the Bill for abo-
lishing-theStatuteS againSt Witchcraft in Ireland,
which formerly_ was considered as a great crime.
Parliament ,then had done one.thing; :.t had re-
pealed all the puniShments for imaginary. crimes,
but it had not yet repealed the puniShments -for
the imaginary crime of Popery:: It was not now
a .question, whether a large bodsy of our.• 'fellow.
subjects- could be put down ; but whether any-
danger was likely to arise. from' the passing of
this Bill ,•'- was convinced- that it .was in-
consistettt with ,every principle .of state •-policy
and necessity. As to thesothee house of Paylia7
ineilt, it -had, after a long fliscussion, sent.np this.
Bill ; and was it At' that heir LordihiPs should
have this measure brought before there year.

•
after year ? 'therefore they should contider...Aliether.
it would not be
_proper to give it the fullest dis-
cussion at this -moment/. He
.hoped That they
would not letermine-on giving a.haSty .tote against •
'this treasure ; and that• they would allow it to,
have the fullest possible consideration. •
Several Peers arose at the same =3l-neat to
speak, but - • • •

The Earl of LIVERPOOL suggested the pro-
priety of acting so as to afford every individual
in the House an opportunity of expressing his
sentiments on this important subject. Whatever
might be their opinion; it liras particularly desira-
ble that the subject should go before the public,
having had the fullest discussion ; he should
therefore move—" That the House do then Ad-
journ."—The' House accordingly adjourned at
ONr O'CLOCK.

. . . •
. _ • .
Of the Audit Office, and whethc any appointm:nt tins i 1261
had been made, or was in contertplation•P •• " .'• - •
The ()fIANCELLOR of the I.;XCHEOTIIiR
the Gentleman allutled to. by the lion. Member had rezigo,od
his situation. Fie was not alVaze or any app ointment havini:
'een made,. • • • • '

FOREIGN TIMBER DUTIES'
Mr. WALLACE Moved. the, Order of the Day
foi- the COMmitment of the Foreign -Titnber. Du-
ties' Bill. . • .
Mr.'cr. P. Crt:is.sl,7t said, that it was 'inten-
,
tion to move as an Amendment that-the 4tiostisact
should again be :referred' to a Coannittee. Ths,
Hon. Member-proceeded to argue that the duties
conterriplated by the Bill 'went to impose' a tax.
of 600,000/. -upon the cOtintry._ He contended
that the priticiple Of free trade ought to be acted.
upon in this trade. Independent of the
.protec-,
tion given to Canada,• the present Bill rendered
tis tribtitary to Thassias for 160,600/. a year, for
no other reason than because we would not have
the deals of Norway. He would .ask the Jtight
Hon. Gentleman (the Charicellor of the . Excher-
quer) if he refused to give up a tax like the Malt
Tax, pres Sing
.with the greatest severity upon the
country, because the revenue must be kept up,
howihe could feel _himself in a condition tOalloyr
a drawback to Russia of one hundred andsixtr
thousand pounds, and to the Colonies. of
450,000/. a year? The 1-ilo,n_ Member es:pressed
his surprise at the RepOrt-- .which the Conir
mittee had made. He thought their detertnina,s,
tion must have been made under - the exi.stanco
of some -miraculous mistake ; for they bestowefi
industry enough in examining the question, and
the principles_-upon .Whicli they ought to hest
acted .were perfectly clear and intelligible.
,Aak.l
that was said in vindication of the principleslof
the Bill with. respect to Canada was, that if; this
protecting citifies were no( afforded, machinery. ..to
the value of 150,0001. would be destroyed.o.'...tf
any losses of this kind would ensue, in, Goal's
name grant•compensation. The loss of one (patr
ter under the proposed duties would cover suck
compensation, and that objection would be goA
rid of.' His object was to.. refer the sublet .
again to the Committee, and the rate of duties.and
the plan he should then recommend was.thio3
lie should propose that 21. 15s. should be
duty upon Baltic Timber. All deals, accoriiing
to their cubical contents; should be subject to
the_ charge of V. 15s. Upon American timber
he should propose
,15s. for the first year,. and 5..5,
more for the second, and ten for the third year.;
which would be equal to the difference in freight.
The Hon. Member conclUded by moving, as .an
amendment, " That this House do resolve itself
into a Committee of the whole House,to consider
further of the duties upon Foreign Tirnber.”r-
Mr. WALLACE could not agree to the *Hon,
Member's prOposition ; but he- was not sorry ,that
it had been made, because it would give hitikau
opportunity of entering into the general prinCiPlel
upon which he had acted. When he had. brought
the measure before the House, he expected oppp:.,
sition from some merchants who were interested'
in the.question which it embraced; but„he, did
not expect that opposition which had come ,from
another quarter, which told him .that fOr-,
got that he was legislating forEngland,' He was Or,
prised to have heard also, that the House had only
to look to the interests of the consumer. He Hail,'
whether right or wrong, all along felt that they
were bound to think of. the 'More
.ektended con-,
nexions and, relations of.tlie trade. He odn-litiseit
that the principle. of free trade, reconimended
the report, was correct in the abstract as appliCahle
to the regulation of this trade ; :but he did net ; •
consider that it ought to be acted. On to.its full
extent uncle' existing circumstances. 110-(leniel;
that the loss to this country would .amaant4o
450,0001. The Honourable. Gentleman. opposite.
had appeared to ftirget the. advantage'nrislN
from competition. If this were properly taken
into consideration', it would be found that•in-
stead.of losing 450,0001., this country wourcla.,b4
the gainer by the present measure.. The Right
Honourable Member then made a comparative -
statement of the duties and prices. ,of
and of 1820; thereby showing that the, en-
couragement of competition had brought
increase of 500,0001. to the,.revenue,.. aod:,,to
the pockets 'of the consumer.. ,The. effect 'of..
giving. protection to the Colonies was to,
create competition, and, to . create. conipetitioa.
was to bring. the . article at the. lowest rate-..cif •
charge to the consumer. lie disapproved, of -pro,
tections generally, but this was a case.iin which
they •were bound' to. grant them, both With
gard to the intereatsof, the grower andlthe,-sell,er,_.
as well as the consumer. Ills objection to taking.
the duties upon. the cubical contents Was, that
it would go. to the complete, exClusion. of c e
country from all paiticipatiOn in .the..deal trade •
while it gave to the other its entire motin-
poly. By "acceding' . to the plan. now pro-
posed .by the Honourable Gentleman, they:should
be giving that monopoly to 'Norway, The, Hon
Gentlemen lookedlo the- immediate eap.e.nce at-
which the article would beapurchased by the oat,:
sumer ; while he (Mr. W.)looked at the effei-4
to be produced upon our general cOnimercia,l .
lotions with the countries:which. Produced
According to.the lion. Gentleman's.propositiou_ .
With respect to American timber, he. only a. 114.410:
thirty shillings in its favo.ar ; • but if .ho woul4.
look to the evidence of the Committee, tie would'find that almost all who we're examined before-it,
stated, that that Sum was.toodittle Ito afirml.proa
tection. Under all the circumstances of the cases
he. was sure the House
.w.9144:,n0t agree to
tard the, progress of ,the measure .it.had so _f ats
adopted, by acceding to the, propesitiotafor ,
ing the sqbject. back for the reconsideration of
the Committee.: . .
Mr..W. SMITH thought. that the details of
subject should be settled in a Committee, up,-
stairs, before it.. was brought; forward in
,that_
lionse for discussion. He. Nv.itslied,, however,: to
make a few observations -upog thogeneral.prn.:. •
Holes involved in the 'consideration of this caae:,,
'Tae ;Hon. Member; then ,proceeded, to
.discuss; •
some general points connected avith.the-subjea.
and concluded by giving his support to the mo.c
tion of his Hon: Friend (IVirr qrant).. ...-
Mr. MARRYATT said-, that there,appeare.d.,to.be:"
a misunderstanding with some Hon, Gcntli.men,,l7
the who did not appear to know
differenae
be-
tween Duties and Drawbacks; the former was 4
paid to the Revenue, and the latter was allowed