The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-16 00:00:00

ample. The soldiers forgot the crime and the criminal if they
did not see the punishment inflicted.
Captain POLHILL, as an old officer, felt it was his duty to
state briefly his reasons for opposing the motion of the Hon.
Member for Wycombe. He thought it was desirable that the
power of inflicting corporal punishment should be left in the
hands of commanding officers, although he admitted that the
less it was found necessary to use it the better.
Captain BERNAL, in reply, stated, that however
humble • an individual he might lbe considered,
he was somewhat surprised that after the motion had been
brought forward, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at
War had not addressed the House upon the subject. He did
think that some respect was due to public opinion out of doors.
--(Cries of " Order," and " Chair.")
The SPEAKER said• that the Hon. Member was not en-
titled to reply.
Captain BERNAL said he wished to explain what had been
said by the Hon. Member Or Liverpool. —( Loud cries of "Order,
order," " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER saitl,that if the Hon. Member had been mis-
understood he might explain, but he could not introduce any
new matter into the debate.

Captain BERNAL. said that his whole argument was misun-
clersn,odand unanswered.—( Laughter.)

The House then divided, liken-the ntimbers were—

For the clause
Against it
Majority —l2B
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
MARINE MUTINY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The CHA NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that
the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next.
CUSTOMS' DUTIES (WEST INDIAN AND NORTH
AMERICAN COLONIES).
On the motion of Air. GLADSTONE, the House resolved
itself into Committee to consider of preliminary resolutions on
Customs' duties ( West Indian and North American colonies).
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he apprehended that this
wes the time when it was his duty to bring before the Commit-
tee the point of which he had given notice. lie deeply regret-
ted that in a Bill of which he approved, and which he would,
therefore, support, that he should find a proposal which was
highly objectionable, and altogether at variance, as it appeared
to him, with the general purport of the Bill, and which he
should, therefore, think it his duty to resist by every means in
his power. lie alluded to the proposal on the part of the Go-
vernment to alter the existing law which allowed the free im-
portation from the United States of America into Canada of a
great variety of articles, and to impose a duty upon some of the
most important of those articles. It was necessary that he should
state to the House what the present system was. Flour, wheat,
cured meat, and such articles, ;sere at present allowed to cross
the border from the United States to Canada without any
duty whatever. That principle had been adopted by the House
on full consideration, in the year 1831, and the consequence
we'', that a Bill had been brought into the House by his late la-
mented friend, Lord Sydenham, then Mr. Poulett Thomson,
who was the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. Previous
to that time there was a duty upon wheat flour brought from
the United States into Canada of ss. per quarter.
Air. Thomsen, in proposing to do away with those duties, had
stated to the House that, as far as he could perceive, there were
no British interests which could be promoted by interfering
with the free passage of those articles, namely, flour and salted
provisions, from the United States into Canada. That measure
of Lord Sydenham, had not been opposed in the House, and he
( Mr. Labouchere) would remind the Committee of the grounds
en which Lord Sydenham had proposed that measure. He
held it ass general principle that in all cases, unless where the
great interests of the empire were concerned, they ought to
abstain from all interference of this kind with the colonies.
1 hat was indeed the principle on which the Hon. Gentleman
opposite had framed the rest of the Bill, and the present case
was the only instance in which ho had departed from that
principle. In every other instance the Bill had been
constructed upon a principle of relaxation, in that part of the
Bill alone had they adopted the principle of increased restric-
tion. Lord Sydenham had said that by taking off these duties
we should make the St. Lawrence the great outlet of the Ame-
rican States, and destroy the whole range of custom-houses
along the St. Lawrence. Now it was of the utmost importance
to make the new American States dependent upon us for their
great outlet, and by removing those duties the St. Lawrence would
become the great outlet of the States of Ohio, Indiana, Michi-
gan, counties rapidly improving in prosperity, fertility, and po-
pulation. The St. Lawrence was the natural outlet of those
States. The employment it gave to the shipping of this country
coming down the St. Lawrence was better than any advantage
that could be derived from a paltry duty on American wheat
and flour crossing the border. It was satisfactory to him (Sir.
L.) to bear the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of
the Board of Trade, say a few nights since, that ho did not pro-
pose this duty in connexion with the present Corn-law, or for
the benefit of the English landowner, while he also said it was
not for the benefit of the Canadian farmer or miller, who, he
admitted with him (Mr. L.), might appeal to the Canadian
Legislature for redress, if they wished to retaliate upon the
Americans for the duty they imposed upon Canadian
wheat or flour crossing the frontier of the United States.
All he meant to say was, that if any Canadian interest was in-
volved in the measure, that was no question for the House. But
if it was not any British interest or Canadian interest, he
would ask what interest was involved in the subject ? He had
not, she confessed, received a satisfactory answer upon that
point. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that it was an
inter-colonial interest that was involved in the case ; but he
was certainly at a loss to conceive how that answer applied.
He was opposed to the proposed duty upon meat; he was op-
posed to the duty upon wheat ; and he could not approve of
many parts of the measure of the Government. The dispute
between him and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, how-
ever, was practically confined to the questions of meat and
wheat. American flour was now imported into this country
through Canada, but he believed the practice was carried on to
a very limited extent ; and he thought that it would be very
unreasonable to entertain any exaggerated fears upon that sub-
ject. He believed that the importation of flour from the United
States to Canada was attended with great advantage to both
countries. The greater the facilities we could give for the
importation of American corn, as compared with the corn grown
on the shores of the Baltic, the more would we remedy
one of the great evils of our present system of Corn-laws.
He must say, that unless they should hear in the course of
these debates some arguments more strong and conclusive than
they had yet heard, and than he expected to hear, he hoped
that the Right Hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of
withdrawing this proposition ; or if he would not consent to
that, he hoped that the Committee would do its duty and refuse
to sanction it. This was a proposition which would destroy
British trade, and to which no advantage had been assigned
which would bear a moment's discussion or investigation.—
( Hear.) He begged to move that after the words " wheat
flour," be inserted " except in Canada."
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he concurred in all the gene-
ral principles which he had heard from the Right Hon. Gentle-
man. (The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke in so low a tone of
voice, as to render it almost impossible for us to catch a sen-
tence.) He thought the time had not yet arrived for the estab-
lishment of the Right Hon. Gentleman's propositions with
regard to Canada. If certain improvements could be effected,
and they were to wish to establish a systefn of free trade, he
(Mr. Gladstone) should say that that was a proposition which
they were perfectly free to grant ; but he did not think that
Canada or any colony ought to claim the benefits of our colonial
system, and at the same time be relieved from prohibition and
restriction. He (Mr. Gladstone) said that there was no such
object as protection of Canadian interests and protection of
ilritish interests in this proposition. Of what possible avail
could it be to lay a duty of 2s. on American flour to prevent
it from being shipped into this country, when all they would
have to do would be to carry it across the lake, by which means
it wou.d bo rendered perfectly nugatory and perfectly useless?
But the Right Hon. Gentleman put the question, For whose ad-
vantage was the charge made? and followed the question, by
saying that it was not fur the benefit of the consumers in Ca-
nada. It was not ; but to benefit the consumers in those colo-
nies which were not exporters of grain, but importers.—
t, Hear, hear.) Canada, with respect to corn, was an export-
ing, and not an importing colony ; and the only way this tax
could operate to their disadvantage, was only by preventing
them from making great gains at the expense of those colo-
nies which, under the present system, received from Canada
American grain as Canadian. This was the case with New-
foundland. Suppase that Newfoundland wants 50,000 barrels
of flour, and there is a duty of 2s on foreign flour, and that
colonial flour be admitted free; now, if the Canadians be al-
lowed to import American flour free, they would import 50,000
barrels from America for their own use, and would send the
same-quantity to Newfaundlands• and the- Canadian merchant
would put in his packet the 2s. which, according to the plan
before the House, would be paid as duty on. the American flour
in Newfoundland, in relief of the taxation'of that colony.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the object of his question was to
ascertain what'particular class of persons in Canada it was in-
tended to benefit. The Right Hon. Gentleman had been used
as an instrutnent, not knowing what he was about. He (Mr.
Roebuck) believed what the Hon. Gentleman had stated, that
no advantage was attempted to be taken for any persons. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had so stated, and he (Mr. Roebuck)
was therefore bound to believe him. In this country they
sought to promote the benefit of the landlord by the monopoly
in the growth of corn. He (Mr. Roebuck) could understand
that. Self-interest was always intelligible. Then to smoothen
the difficulties which lay in the path of the Right Hon. Baro-
net—difficulties which he (Mr. R.) understood, which he could
appreciate, and which he (.11r. R.) was glad to say the Right
Hon. Baronet had not shrunk from facing—nevertheless, now to
smooth those difficulties, and to hold out some ground of hope
to the agricultural classes of the country, they said they were
going to render impossible the importation of Ametican flour.
He ( Mr. Roebuck) did not mean to put a question on this
subject without touching upon a point which the House ought
to understand—namely, whether they were new in a condition
to impose any duty such as that hu alluded to fir the benefit of
the landlord ? But he would come to that point presently. He
would now endeavour to explicate the ratiocination of the Right
Hon. Gentleman. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that he
did not intend to benefit any interest in the Canadas, nor any
interest of the producers anywhere else, and that his object was
to benefit the consumer. Was it, he (Mr. Roebuck) wanted
to know, to benefit the consumers of Canada? He certainly
would've benefited in his (Sir. Roebuck's) opinion by cheap
corn. But they did not cheapen the price of corn by
imposing an additional duty of 2s. per quarter; therefore it
was not the consumer in Canada that would be benefited.
Right Hon. Gentleman said certainly not; that
was the
consumer in Newfoundland that would be };.,eneated, hat
was he to have his corn chearms.e by the '.naposition of in ad-
ditional duty of 2s per quae,er ? lie (Mv. lassebetely always
found that the half-phy.s, srema the haustheoNian used terms
that were not intelligilse
and the man who thoroughly under-
stood the subject of Which he tressed used plain words, and
such as were easily 'understood, He certainly presumed that
the Right Hon. t,entlemisn understood the present subject, but
he could not
'nut regret that he had used such words as " dif-
ferential He (Sir. Roebuck) wanted to know hew
the imr„osition of 2s. additional duty upon the barrel of corn
would' lessen the price of it to army person, or how it
ould enable them to import corn into Newfoundland
cheaper than the American merchant? The American
corn, he knew by experience, to be hotter than
the Canadian corn, and that therefore it would find its way into
Newfoundland whether they imposed a duty or not. The feet
was, the Right Hon. Gentleman was in a maze on the. matter.
It was clear as possible that he wanted to make out a ease. He
was like a man who advocated a bad cause. He had talked
round this subject, and about it and about, but he never ex-
plained it ; and now the real question was simply—as the Go-
vernment itself declared that it had no object in view as re-
spected Canada—was the House prepared in explanation of
the Right lion. Gentleman to put a duty upon foreign corn
for the benefit of the consumer of Newfoundland—were they
to interfere with the great principles of our colonial power for
the purposes laid down -by the Right Iron. Gentleman ? Hu
believed that
was
notto
win with tlier ul
t(hllelrd.ivials.)rihoauds
America, iedr:ww".i t then e e
legislation et our colonies, except aa regarded the matter
of trade.—(Hear, from the Ministerial benches.) He took the
High's Hon. Gentleman at his word. It was to matters
of trade he referred. He (Mr. Roebuck) had told them that
he hail a constitutional objection to the imposition of a tax of
this description for the benefit of anybody in this country not
connected with our trade. Did they impose it for the benefit
of the landlord? Then, if they did, they broke through the
Act of George 111. referring to the matter. The Right Hon.
Gentleman said it was not intended for the benefit of the land-
lord, nor for the merchant of Canada ; neither was it for the
benefit of the Canadian producer or consumer, but it seemed
that it was intended for the benefit of the consumer in New-
foundland. That was all. It was reduced to that single item.
GLADSTONE—The West Indies.
Mr. ROEBUCK—The West Indies! How could the West

Indies be benefited by their putting 2s. a barrel on American /
flour?—( Hear, hear.) Now, it was upon this point that they
were about to legislate for Canada. They had broken
up its Administration. They had crammed the Eng-
lishman end the Frenchman into the same hull, and
now they were about to violate the Act which Great
Britain had pas.ed, after she had been taught wisdom, by which
she declared that we would not interfere with such matters.
It was a serious step which they were asked to take. What
was it which commenced the riot in Boston? An impost upon
tea. And why should ill-blood again be excited, when the
Canadians saw this impost inflicted upon them for the benefit,
of the landlords? They would compare Upper Canada to New
York and to Michigan, to that vast wilderness, whose city
after city, metropolis after metropolis, railroad after railroad,
was continually springing up. He would ask the House if they
were prepared to add this to the existing causes of disaffection ?
Importation from America to Canada was easy, almost beyond
conception ; it did not depend upon any impediment from the
River St. Lawrence—corn floated down• from Kingston in
twelve hours—a thousand years hence the importation would
not be more easy. Why should they interfere? There was a
mischievous spirit besetting them all ; they did not know how to
govern the country, but they must !haw their authority by this
petty interference. Let the people govern themselves. There
xas not a merchant in London who d.d not know what was the
effect of imposing 2s. a barrel on American flour. lie would not
leave this question without making a slight mention of the law
of the case. The proposition which he laid down was, first,
that goed policy Would teach them not to interfere with the
internal regulations of their colonies without some special
ground made of benefit to the whole community ; and, se-
condly, that the mode in which that benefit was to be derived
was specially pointed out by the Declaratory Act of 1778.
That Act bound them not to interfere with the trade of the
colony for the purpose of the revenue of the colony. The only
case in which they were at liberty to interfere was, where it
was necessary, for the benefit of the great leading interests of
this mighty empire. Now, he asked what those interests were
which needed it ? First, the agricultural interest did not need it;
the mercantile interest did not need it ; the people who were
about to he taxed did not need it ; but, said the Right Hon.
Gentleman. there are certain people somewhere, he ( Mr.
Roebuck) did not exactly know where, who might derive a
benefit by the imposition of this duty. The Right Hon.
Gentleman distinctly stated, and was particular in making the
statement, that it would not benefit the growers of corn. Now
he (Mr. Roebuck) would ask, would it benefit the consumers?
—( Hear, hear. ) The growers of corn might be benefited by
keeping up high prices, but the consumers of corn can only be
benefited by low prices; and the onus rested on the Right
Honourable Gentleman of showing how the consumer could
be benefited, and how American flour could be made
cheaper in the market by the imposition of a duty of two
shillings. The imposition of this duty, moreover, was con-
trary to the provisions of an Act of Parliament. In the
year J77:4, just before England was compelled to acknow-
ledge the independence of the American States, an attempt
was made to conciliate the colonies by passing a Declaratory
Act. That Act declared that the King and Parliament of
Great Britain should not impose any duty on tea for the pur-
pose of raising any revenue in any colony ; that they should not
impose any duty except for the regulation of commerce; and
that the produce of such duty should be applied exclusively to
colonial uses. Now, with the Act before them, the onus lay
upon them of showing that the imposition of this duty was ne-
cessary for the benefit of the general commerce of the United
Kingdom. It was not sufficient to show that some one parti-
cular individual might by chance derive a benefit of 2id. from
this duty ; but they were bound to show .that the imposition
of this duty was necessary for the benefit of the whole commer-
cial interests of the kingdom. lie asked the Right Hon Gen-
tleman to show him that, and he thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman would have great difficulty in showing how any in-
terest could be benefited by raising the price of corn and flour
by the imposition of this duty.
Lord STANLEY thought that the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman's fears that the agricultural interest would he benefited
by the adoption of the proposed measures might have been
considerably allayed if he (Mr. Roebuck) had taken the
trouble to observe the thin attendance of agricultural Members
at the discussion.—(Hear.) Although the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had attacked his Right Hon. Friend as being igno-
rant both of geography and of political economy, he (Lord
Stanley) did not think his Right Hon. Friend stood in need of
any defence. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had through-
out misrepresented his Right Hon. Friend. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had accused his Right Hon. Friend of
saying that the St. Lawrence was not the great outlet for the
produce of the Canadas and of a portion of the United States.
His Right Hon. Friend said nothing of the sort, and he (Lord S. )
could not believe that there was a Member of the House, nay
scarcely a person in England, who was so grossly ignorant.
The real state of the case was this. The Hon. Member for
Taunton had said, that all the corn and flour exported from
America, by way of the St. Lawrence, was paid for directly in
British manufacture; and, therefore, it was of the utmost im-
portance to encourage this trade for the benefit of those en-
gaged in British manufactures. In reply to that, his Right
Hon. Friend, had said that he (Mr. Gladstone)was afraid that
the Hon. Member for Taunton was taking too sanguine a view
of the subject, because, although the navigation down the St.
Lawence was easy, yet the navigation up the St. Lawrence
was attended with so many difficulties, that he doubted whether
the increased state of British manufacture would take place to
the extent contemplated by the Hon. Member tor Taunton.
That was the argument of which his Right Hon. Friehd had
made use, and which the Hon. Gentleman misrepresented.
He (Mr. Roebuck) could not understand how the imposition of
2s. a barrel upon tour could make corn either cheaper or
dearer. His Honourable Friend never •contended that corn
in Newfoundland would be received cheaper, by his pro-
position, than it as at present, but he contended that
whereas Canada possessed an opportunity in the first
instance of importing into the provinces of the British
empire cheaper than it could be obtained elsewhere, the result
would be, not to relieve the consumer of Newfoundland from
the payment of additional price, but that the additional price
would go into the pocket of the merchant in Canada. Let
them take the case of 2,000 barrels of flour to be exported
from the United States and from Canada, supposing
a duty of two shillings to be paid on all flour from
the United States, and that the Canadian flour paid no
duty. The Canadian flour coming into competition with the
United States flour, the corn from the United States would re-
gulate the price of the Canadian flour ; and the result would be
that 2,000 barrels coming into Newfoundland from the United
States paying 2s. duty, and another 2,000 from Canada, and
paying no duty, the price would not be diminished to the con-
sumer in Newfoundland, and the revenue would lose the
amount which would result from the tax which they would
have received from the United States' flour. He had risen
merely for the purpose of 'endeavouring to show in what re-
spects the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had misunderstood his
lion. Friend's argument. lie was not aware, whether he had
made the case clear to him ; but the proposition which his
Hon. Friend had put forward was purely one of equity.
There were no interests in Canada, no interests in this country,
neither had agricultural interests, anything to do with this
question ; it was a mere question of inter colonial policy, a
question, in his mind, of very small importance, and which, he
was sure, would not raise in Canada those hostile feelings which
some Gentlemen had supposed.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—

For the clause
For the amendment ...... 54
Majority for Ministers ... —9
On re-entering the gallery we found Lord J. RUSSELL on
his legs, who was discussing the neat clause in the Bill. He
said that without any practical evil arising from the present
law, which had lasted for eleven years, the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman came with his abstract principle and said, that because
the revenue of Newfoundland might be injured, he would come
and interrupt that which was good and useful to commerce, and
put a stop to their advantage. He (Lord John Russell) never
knew anything so wanton, so unnecessary in his life.—( Hear.)
If it were for the benefit of some great English interest, if it
were for the benefit of the landed interest, or of any material
interest, he might say that the principle was injurious and
vicious, but he should say that seine interest was concerned,
and that. some great matter might be obtained by the legisla-
tion ; but when no benefit could arise to any interest
or the revenue, he must say he thought it most unnecessary.—
( Cheers.) No benefit could accrue to the consumer, for he
understood the Noble Lord to say that the Canadian ,
merchant and importer, being able to send those goods to
Newfoundland and other Icolonies, would have an advantage
over the United States merchant, and that he, not,paying any
duty would go into theirtarket at Newfoundland, and sell his
proportion, at the same price as the United states merchant
sold his, and would thereby derive an advantage. By that,
however, he made out that the consumer received no benefit.
They only said that the Canadian merchant might receive
sonic advantage from this legislation. Was this a reason to
interfere with that which had been established for eleven
years, which was working for good, and might produce very
great advantages? Because. he would say that there could be
no greater advantage than to have a free communication be-
tween Canada and the United States, because it would bring
both to the colonies and to this country great importations
front the Western States of North America. In the case of the
East India rum he could understand not a principle; but in this
case it was a pure evil—they were interfering with the pros-
perity of Canada, and they had no reason for it, but that such
a principle had been in force before. He hoped those who
had decided in favour of this principle in the case of wheat
flour, would negative the proposition now before the House,
and that the House would mark its sense of disapprobation at
this petty, meddling legislation.
Mr. GLADS7'UNE said, after the tempered speech of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, he certainly was sorry
to hear so sharp and so unjustifiably worded a speech from the
Noble Lord as that which had just fallen from him.. The
Noble Lord had alluded to this measure as if it were intended
to obstruct the commerce between the United States and t'
country and Canada, and had stated that reducing the '
the articles contained in the resolutions would an
Now he (Mr. G.) must say, that inst- _ sieve that &vet.
been selected calculated more to • --ate& could oat bays
(Mr. G.) ventured to sae support the resolutions. H•
America „seat it Is almost impossible for
into--'
....itecimeat into Caned& to be transmitted
would sr-
for this plain and simple reason, that ittnerica
coy-
this countto send. her
-od from her ©tintorts her salted raeat to this
~,cry, where it would be taken fur our shipping without pay-
ment deny d'itt, Whatever.
Lord vrOHN RUSSELL—That was not my argument.
My ittgument was that the increase in the duty would not tend
to promote commerce.
Ur. LABOU Cil ERE: must admit that when he addressed
the 'louse last night, he thought it was impossible for the
Right Hon. Gentleman to bring forward the slightest argu-
ment that would bear upon this subject, but he (Mr. L.)
must admit that he had discovered something more plausible
than he anticipated.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But
at the same time he must say, that never was a question pro-
posed to that House by any Government supported by such
slender arguments as those used on that occasion. The Right
Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had said
that they (the Opposition) had reduced the duty on salt meat
so mach, that there would be no difficulty in the importation of
American meat, but they must remember that the St. Law-
rence was the outlet of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, and all the
North-western portion of America. Now cured meat from
that part of she country would naturally come down fro-, the
St. Lawrence if they did not interrupt it by imposl-n,
meat of the Noble Lord, the Secre.arya duty.
He confessed he had heard with comic:y/4W- •
that occasion, because he was h e regret the argu.
which decided upon the moasu ,ember of that 9enrlllp.tili
for the Colonies, es
I:distought forward
Thomson in the House or comm,ffiii Which established the
,rfur fiepLart,,iner to alter. He really did net 'think
the Noble fw-asord74:l s.tcaete'dnltle the House any ally rekson
1"'om that policy which he had reetnninended, and
existed for eieven years without iiknijeurybte anybody.
;eioesotualtdednotht
that the
choouwresveeprr,owpiotshedthbeyHhoern.ma
Majesty's Govern.
merit was a violation of the Declaratory Act. He
felt bound to
say he could not agree with the Hon. 1
i lembe • r in that objec-
tion to the measure.

Cllr. ROEBUCK had taken the trouble to ascertain the
consequences of this measure to Canada and Newfoundland.
Wheat imported from Canada int* Newfoundland would
be got at 205., and if they put a duty upon flour imported
from America into Canada of 25., that would make it 225.,
therefore Newfoundland would have to pay a tax of 25., which
would be reaped in Canada.
Lord 110 WICK certainly concurred with the Hon. Gen-
tleman that the measure would be an advantage, but nut a
politic one. 'the arguments used by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite was precisely the same as that used by them on
that side of the House with respect to East India tobacco.
The revenue of both countries would increase without benefit-
ing the consumer. lie entirely concurred with the lion.