The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAC 14, 1842.

the whole proceedings he had been anxious to put his
linger upon the system, and abstain from all asperity W'
I:inguage upon individuals. But the Hon. Member for
Finsbury had, in slanting language, for his language was
as oblique as his motion, endeavoured to fix on him
the stigma of being-actuated by other motives than those
he had distinctly avowed. He said he was desirous to
promote the purity of the House, and yet he stated a case
the most corrupt, according to his own phra-
seology, and in the most shameless and barafaced
manner. Those who promoted purity ought to do so by
example i well as precept, which of the two modes of
proceeding, was the most straightforward opposition.
The motion of the Hon. Baronet was plain and
distinct, it questioned the propriety of inquiry at all; but
the Hon. Member for Finsbury was favourable to in-
quiry, and yet endeavoured to prevent investigation.
When it was before the world that there were nine or
ten cases that might be distinctly proved, were they to
say that tlse whole representation was so corrupt and so
evil, that they could make no inquiry ? Were they to
indulge in an esoteric morality in that House, and in-
dulge in sneers which they would not dare to mention
out of doors ? ,What he desired was, to make the matter
so plain as to render it necessary to legislate upon it.
He trusted to the good feeling of Hon. Gentlemen around
him to treat with scorn the present motion. considering
that itwas not an honest and straightforward, but a round-
about, oblique, and factious mode of opposing his (Mr.
Roebuck's) object.
Mr. PAKINGTON was surprised at the intention ex-
pressed by the Hon. Member (Mr. T. Duncombe) of
pressing his motion to a division. The sole object of
the Hon. Member was to throw ridicule upon the motion
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. He be
lieved the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had done
great public service by bringing forward this subject.
The extent of bribery which had taken place at the last
election was discreditable to that House, and discredit-
able to the law. He would not be a party to an attempt
to defeat the object for which the Committee had been
appointed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he perfectly concurred in the
objections which had been stated to the motion of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury. He thought, that having
ordered the inquiry, it would be extremely inconsistent
for the House, by an extraordinary and unusual pro-
ceeding, to defeat the object of that inquiry. His Hon.
Friend seemed to imply that the House must either agree
to his motion, or make the confession that its Members
had been guilty of bribery ; but he (Lord J. Russell)
would not admit that such was the case. There were
cases in which moderate refreshment was given to the
voters, which were very different from the offering of a
bribe of five guineas. For himself, he would feel it very
unsafe to say that he had never paid any sums beyond
legal expenses. He would suggest to the Honourable
Member the propriety of using words which would
meet the difficulty.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said—ln rising to support the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he would assure
the House that he did not do so with any intention to
defeat the inquiry. BUt for his part, if he were included
in the inquiry, he would not consent to be tried by a per-
son who had himself been guilty of the same practices of
which ho was accused.—(Loud cries of " Divide.") He
did not think with the lion. Member for Finsbury, that
corruption had so far infected the House, that this small
number of persons could not sign the test. If it were so,
the sooner the people knew how they were represented
in that House--(Divide, divide.)
Mr. WAKLEY was utterly at a loss to know why so
much soreness of criticism was bestowed upon the motion
of his Hon. Colleague. It had been said that this was
proposed to get rid of the Committee. He denied that,
and he believed that its effects would be to carry out the
object of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. In-
stead of so much reproach being cast upon his Hon. Col-
league's courageous and honest acknowled&ment, his ex-
ample ought to be followed. His Hon. Friend was right
in bringing forward his motion, and could not have an
object in defeating the motion brought forward by the
Honourable and Learned Member for Bath, and
prosecuted by him with so much zeal and ability.
Did the Right Honourable Baronet opposite think
there was anything in the test which every Member
ought not to be able to take ? Would it not be very well
for any candidate to be able to point to this test, and
show that if he were returned he would have to take it?
—(hear.)' He thought that the inquiry ought not to
end with those six boroughs, for if it did it would give
no satisfaction. He did not agree with his Hon. Friend
that there were 600 members who could not take the test,
for he believed that many Members were not guilty of
bribery, or any dishonest practice. For his part, he
would not have the slightest hesitation in taking this
test, for he never spent one farthing in bribery or treat-
ing, and he believed that many men could take the test
as safely as him. The inquiry, he asserted, could not
stop with these six boroughs, but it should go as far as
the petitions would reach, for in most of them the alle-
gations of corruption and bribery were as strong as in
those which were compromised. He supported the
motion.

Mr. BROTHERTON thought that the Hon. Member
for Finsbury should have brought forward his motion
before the Committee was appointed. He was confident
that the, gentlemen of that Committee would do their
duty, and would neglect no means of bringing to light
the corrupt practices which had prevailed at so many of
our elections. For his part he should have had no hesi-
tation in taking the test ; but he could not support the
motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. V. SMITH said that he should feel it his duty to
vote with the Hon. Member for Finsbury. It would be
advisable, in his opinion, to satisfy the public that the
Members appointed to try the charges that had been
made were themselves free from the practices complained
of. They were not about to call on the Members of the
Committee to subscribe the declaration from any in-
vidious motives ; but he believed it would he more satis-
factory to the public that they should be placed beyond
the reach of suspicion.
Mr. T. DIJNCOMBE said that he wished to say a few
words in answer to some of those very unfounded attacks
which had been made on him by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath. He had - always thought that the
usual Parliamentary course was, not to attribute motives
to any Member of that House when he had brought for-
ward any motion lie had though fit. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, the Member for Bath, had thought
proper to attribute to him motives which were totally
unjust and unfounded.—(Cries of " Order.") The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said that he had
wished, by oblique and indiscreet, and as it were
underhand means, to defeat the inquiry. Now he could
till the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that there had
been nothing in his (Mr. Duncombe's) conduct in that
House which could authorise any individual to say that
he letd not always taken a direct course when any
motion was brought forward.—(Hear, hear.) He was
not one of those who had made attacks upon individuals
in their absence, and who when called upon to justify
those attacks would shrink from doing so.—(Order.)

Mr. ROEBUCK said that if the Hon. Gentleinan
meant to make any charge against him, he begged he
would state when he had been guilty of any conduct to
justify it.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member for Bath,
could not speak in reply ; if he spoke at all, it would
only be by the special indulgence of the House.
Mr. DUNCOMBE contended that he was in order ;
he repeated that he was net one of those men who made
attacks on individuals who were not there to defend
themselves.

Sir E. EINATCHBULL rose to order ; he deprecated
this mode of one Member making attacks on
.another.
Mr.DUNCOMBE—I am making no attacks.— (Order.)
Sir E. KNATCHBULL was quite sure that discus
sions of this personal nature were not advisable.
Mr. FRENCH thought if the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury was personally attacked he had a right to defend
himself. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. BERNAL said that as the Speaker had not
given his opinion it would be indecent to adjourn the
debate.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUNCONIBE said his object was that the Com-
mittee should have the confidence of the public, and he
believed it would not obtain that unless this test were
applied. They might think his confess'ons shameless
and barefaced, that might be human frailty ; but he
considered that frailty preferable to those professions
into which the self-conceit of other people led them ;
namely, the profession of superior virtue and purity,
which only themselves were able to discover.
Mr. FRENCH withdrew his motion of adjournment,
and the House divided ; when there appeared :--

For Mr. Duncombe's motion l7
Against it ltco
Majority against the motion -143
LIVERPOOL PETITION ON EDUCATION.

On our admission to the gallery, we found
Sir 11. DOUGLAS on his legs, stating that seeing the
Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary in
his place, he wished to inform him that he had received
a letter from Liverpool, with respect to the petition he
had presented the other night on the subject of ethics,-
Lion, mid for presenting which he had been charged by
the Hon. Member with a breach of the privileges of the
House for presenting a petition with fictitious signa-
tures. The letter he had just received stated that the
signatures were genuine.
bin SHILL would only observe, in reply to the Hon.
and Gallant Officer, that it was most extraordinary that
in a petition casting the gravest imputations on many
Members of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland, the first
page should contain a whole series of names written
manifestly by the same hand.
Sir R. PEEL despaired of getting through with the
tariff, if these irregular discussions were indulged in.
He really must take advantage of the rules of the House.
He did not mean for one moment to say that the delay
occasioned by these discussions was intentional, but he
must ask the Speaker if such discussions were strictly
in order.

SHILL--This is a matter of privilege.
The SPEAK,LIi said that, according to the strict rules
of the House, no debate could take place that did not in
some manner relate to the Orders of the Day ; but, that
of late, a practice had sprung up, of asking questions and
raising discussions on them, on the motion that the Orders
of the Day be read. According to the strict rules of
the House, however, the debate ought to relate to some
of the Orders of the Day.
Mr. SHILL would just remark, that the diseussion
whichhad just taken place, related to a question ofpri Mop'
and was, therefore, perfectly in order. He had charged
the Hon. Member for Liverpool with having been guilty of
a breach of privilege in presenting a petition to the
House, many of the signatures to which had been fabri-
cated, He had been requested by the Noble Lord, the
other Member for Liverpool, to postpone calling the at-
tention of the House to the subject until the Hon. and
Gallant Officer should have. hart an opportunity of com-
municating with Liverpool on the subject, and this was
the earliest opportunity he had had of calling the atten-
tion of the House to the subject.
IPSWICH ELECTION.

Mr. PAKINGTON rose, not fur the purpose of de-
laying the tariff, but to make a communication to the
House on the subject of the Ipswich Election, which he

was anxious to do before the holidays ; but if the House
was desirous that he should not do so—(Cries of " Go
on ! go on !") It would be in •the remembrance of the
Howe that he, as Chairman of that Election Committee,
had moved that the issuing of the writ be suspended for
three weeks, in order to give time for the evidence to be
printed. That time would expire on Monday next, and he
thought it right to inform the House that it was not his
intention to move the further suspension of the issuing
of the writ. He thought it right to make this state-
ment in order that onourable MeMbers might
have an opportunity or considering what course
they might think it advimble to pursue. In
allusion to what had fallen from the Hon. Member
for Montgomery the other evening, relating to the con-
duct of the Committee in neglecting to report whether
the bribery had been committed with the cognizance of
the sitting Members, without at all entering . into the
reasons which had induced the Committee to avoid all
allusion to the subject in the Report, and without al-
luding what he considered the very vague manner in
• hich that part of the Election Act was worded, he
would, as some imputation seemed to have been cast
upon the sitting Members, at once state that it was not
his intention in any manner to imply more than had been
stated in the Report, and that the general feeling 4)f the
Committee—a feeling in which he concurred—had been
that it had not been proved that the bribery which had
taken place had taken place with the cognizance or
knowledge of the sitting Members.
THE TARIFF. •

On the motion that the Order of Day for the House
resolving itself into Committee on the Customs Bill be
read,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from
the ropemakers of London, preying that the House
would not impose a less duty than Bs. upon the importa-
tion of foreign cordage, or than 20s. upon the importa-
tion of foreign twist.
Viscount HOWICK could assure the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, that in bringing forward the motion of which he
had given notice, delay was not his object.—(Hear,
hoar.) In the proposed alterations in the scale of du-
ties, there were many articles on the importation of
which from foreign countries it was proposed to levy a
higher rate of duty than on their importation from the
British colonies. The Right Hon. Baronet must agree that
the subject was one well worthy of the consideration of the
House, and that as it involved a question of principle,
it could be much more conveniently discussed by bring-
ing it forward in the shape of a resolution before going
into Committee, inasmuch as if a discussion were to be
raised in Committee on every article of the tariff in which
the principle was involved, such discussion, in addi-
tion to many other inconveniences, would inevitably oc-
casion great waste of time, and much unneccessary delay.
On the other hand, to select one article for exemption,
and to take a division on that, showing the determina-
tion of the House with regard to the principle gene-
rally, would not be doing justice to the importance of
the principle he then felt it his duty to submit to the
consideration of the House; and it would also prevent
that division being fairly taken, since it would be mixed
up with the consideration of the proper rate of duty to
be charged on the particular articles. Therefore, in
moving the resolution of which he had given notice,
which was in these words—" That in making a new ar-
rangement of the Customs duties, it is not expedient to
impose different rates of duty upon the same article,
when imported from foreign countries or from British
possessions, in any case where no such difference now
exists; and that in those cases in which such a difference
already, exists, it is not expedient that it should be in-
creased." It was now proposed, for the first time, to reduce
the duty on articles from our colonial possessions, or
compared with the duty on the same kind of articles
from other countries. To this he had the greatest ob-
jection. He objected to differential duties, because it
would leave the consumer subject to the burdens of taxa-
tion, and yet deprive the Treasury of the income which
it ought to derive from those burdens, and would en-
tirely fail in affording that advantage to the colonies for
the purpose of which those differential duties were
created. With respect to this country, it wits perfectly
obvious that differential duties were contrary to the in-
terest of the country. Under the head of provisions he
found the articles of cheese and butter. At the present
time, these articles were at the same rate of duty, whe-
ther imported from a foreign country or a British posses-
sion. Butter paid a duty of 11. per cwt., and cheese 10s.
the cwt., from whatever country they were imported.
The consequence of this had been, that none of these
articles had been imported from a British possession, but
from foreign countries a very considerable revenue had
been obtained upon them, realising about 370,0001.
The proposal of her Majesty's Government was that the
duty upon these articles from the colonies should be re-
duced. Butter from foreign countries was still to re-
main at 11. per cwt., but from British possessions it was
to be ss. Cheese from foreign countries would still re-
main at 10s. per cwt., and from British possessions it
would be 2s. 6d. Now what would be the necessary ope-
ration of this change ? The Right Hon. Baronet told
them that every article in the tariff had been carefully
considered with reference to the prices of the articles.
He supposed, therefore, that it was intended by this ree
duction in the duty on articles from the colonies, to allow
the products of the colonies to enter into competition with
articles from foreign countries. But the difference in
the duty would counterbalance this advantage.' He would
assume, for the sake of argument, that this was the case.
He might assume that in future one-half of the supply of
these articles would be derived from the British colo-
nies, and the other halt' from foreign countries. It was
obvious, then, that the condition of the consumer would
be unaltered, because the price would be the same, there-
fore when the duty was changed, there would be no dif-
ference so far as the consumer was concerned; but there
would be this very important difference to the Treasury.
that where they now received 375,0001., the duty on half
the supply would continue the same as at present, viz.,
187,5001., and the other half being for the colonies, the
duty would be only one quarter of what it now is, and
instead of 187,5001., it would be somewhat less than
47,000/., so that it would be a loss to the revenue
of 140,0001., without a diminution of the price to
the consumer. Assuming then, that one half of the
supply would come from the colonies, for every cwt. of
cheese the revenue imposed a duty of 2s. 6d., instead of
10s., thus losing 7s. 6d. per cwt. ; and the new duty on
butter would be 55., instead Of 1/., thus losing 15s. per
cwt., at the same time no advantage would accrue .to the
consumer. Precisely in this manner all differential duties
operate. The consumer ought not to be subjected to
any burden, which was not productive to the Treasury.
The answer to this no doubt would be, that the colonies
must be protected. He trusted that the time would come,
especially after the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet
the other evening, when they would see none but revenue
duties.—(Hear, hear.) It was certainly difficult to dis-
tinguish between protecting duties, and duties for re-
venue, because even those which were called pro-
tective duties, did of necessity prsduce revenue.
Even the corn duties themselves produced, in
reality, a very large revenue. With respect to the
argument, that the colonies should be protected against
foreigners, his answer to that would be a quotation from
the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet. He (Lord
Howick) heard with great pleasure the opinion expressed
by the Right Hon. Baronet, " That if other countries
did not choose to buy cheap from usthat was no reason
why we should punish ourselves by refusin!, to buy
cheap from them." He cordially agreed %vith him in
that opinion. It might be said that it was necessary to
secure our authority in the eolonies, by placing a low
rate ofduty on their produce. But there would arise
the question, were differential duties really an advantage
to the colonies or not ? The argument, he maintained,
was, that the establishment of these differential duties
were entirely delusive, and, instead of their being- ad-
vantageous, they were extremely injurious. He enter-
tained this opinion on the simple grounds that he be-
lieved the establishment of these differential duties had
the necessary effect of diverting the capital and ilidustry
of the colonies from their natural channel. Those dif-
ferential duties placed the colonies in a situation of con-
siderable danger. lie was told that by these duties a
great trade would be carried on between the mother
country and the colonies, highly beneficial to both.
Ile believed. that that had been the received doctrine
of a long period by many persons. Although this was
fortified by prescription, few gentlemen would be found
to maintain it in principle, whatever they (lid in practice,
for he believed that principle was now very generally
abandoned. He for one contended that trade of this
description between the colonies was disadvantageous to
both parties. He believed that instead of maintaining the
connection between the mother country and the
colonies, the maintenance of this principle • was
of all others calculated to dissolve it. Because
it was obvious, that it' the productions of the colonies
were received on more favourable terms in this country
than similar priAuctions of other countries, the colonies,
in their teen, must be sub;eet to a smaller trade in our
markets and elsewhere. This was the ground why he
said these dut7.es would weaken the connexion between
the colonists and the mother country. Look to the
United States of America ; it was perfectly well known
that it was this system of taxation which led to the
unhappy separation of the United States from the
mother country, and that the feeling of soreness was
created in the colonies by the restrictions which existed
with respect to trade, and produced that feeling in the
United States which ultimately led to the separation of
the two countries. He thought it was best to assimi-
late duties, and to leave the internal government as
much as possible to the colonies themselves. He be-
lieved that the adoption of such a liberal policy as this,
so far from weakening the connection between the mo-
ther country and the colonies, would contribute
more than anything else to render the con-
nection permanently and mutually beneficial.—(hear.)
After hearing the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the
other evening, he knew not how he (Sir R. Peel) could
conscientiously object to his (Lord llowick's) motion.
lie heard with great satisfaction the Right Hon. Baronet
lay down the great principles of commercial freedom.
He heard him express his concurrence in the views of
Mr. Huskisson ; and he (Lord Howick) now asked the
House and the Right Hon. Baronet whether they believed
that if Mr. Huskisson was now alive, and had the absolute
power of disposing of this question, that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had, he would create new differential duties in favour
of the colonies? On a carefulexamination of the scale of duties
proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet, he ( Lord Howick) was
nut able to discover the principle on which it was framed.
The Right Hon. Baronet would no doubt be able to offer all
explains! ion on that matter, but at present he ( Lord Howiok)
was unable to comprehend the principle on which the changes
in the tariff were founded. In the case of some articles, the
produce of the colonies, proteltion was granted, while in that of
others it was altogether withheld. 'l'o colonial cotton they
granted a protective duty of 80 per cent. against cotton the
w
produce of foreign countries; while with respect to linen there
no difference whatever in the rates of duty imposed, whether
it were colonial nr foreign. In like manner manufactures
from goats' wool was not protected, while those from sheep's
wool was. What, he wanted to know, was the reason of all
that ? There was, no doubt, some reason for such an ar-
rangement,but the uninitiated must feel it difficult to under-
stand it. To commercial restrictions generally he was op-,
posed. It was not to restrictions on commerce that we owel
our prosperity. If we were desirous of carrying on an advan-
tageous commerce with France, Belgium, Spain, and the Unis

tee States, we must set them a good example. But was this
now the case? On the contrary. protection was given now
to articles to which it had not been given before. He al-
luded to the case of salted irovi.ions Hereafier, a trade he-
twee this country and the 'United states miizht, in all proba-
bility, grow up in salted provisions, and he asked was it
Oleo right, was it po itie, to ssie to their colonies the
power of introducing in' o this country salt pro di-
sions at a duty one-fourth less than that imposed on
the same article when imported from foreign countries? It
was with these views, and on those grounds, that he begged
leave to movo as an amendment, the resointion of which he had
given notice. At the same time he begged leave to thank the
Right Hon. Baronet for doing as much as he had done in miti-
gation of those restrictions which pressed on many branches of
our trade. He only regretted that the Rigbt Hon. Baror et
had not proceeded further in the same course. However, the
very announcement of such principles by the Right Hon. Gen
tleman gave ho e--rather, gave certain indications—that many
years could not elapse before those principles would be carried
fully and completely into effect.
The SPEAKER having put the question.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the character of the Noble
Lord and the tone of his speech demonstrated that he had no
motive in the proposition he made except that of ihe public
advantage.—( Hear, hear.) And he concurred with him that
the mode in which he brought ferward his proposition was the
most convenient he could adopt. On the other hand, he
should claim from him an acknowlec:gment that the Govern-
ment would not be slow to adopt those measures he now re-
commended, if they thought it would promote the public ad-
vantage. In the first place, with a view to lay before the House
the spirit in which the Government proceeded in this matter,
he would make some remarks on those differential autie, in
favour of colonial produce, which were already to be found
in the statute book, from which they would be better
able to understand the reasons for the imposit.on of the new
duties to be imposed. There were 131 different articles of
colonial produce in the existing tariff, which were protected.
Of these 131 articles, the existing differential duty had been re-
duced in no less than 98 cases ; but in no instance, however,
had it been reduced by raising the duty on the article when it
proceeded from the colonies, but, in every instance, by lower-
ing the duty, when it proceeded from foreign countries. In
21 of the remaining articles, the differential duties remained
unchanged. He now came to the remaining eight cases, four
of these consisted of Brazil wood, ebony, coffee, and pitch ; the
other four were isinglass, cotton, silk goods, and tallow,
and the principle on which they proceeded with. regard
to these latter articles, was founded on the relations
which subsisted between them and foreign countries,
In consequence of these relations it was deemed advisable not
to interfere with the duty on foreign articles, while at the
same time it was considered reasonable to reduce them to
their just standard. With regard to the article of coffee,
there was a reduction of the duty in this country, and also a
reduction of the differential duty on this article ; but he did
not dwell on that, because the high duty on foreign coffee
fell on the class of what he might term naturalised coffee, that
was, foreign coffee coming within the limits of the East India
Company's Charter. But the British produce of this article
had to compete in the market not only with the coffee which
paid 3d. more of duty, but also with the coffee which made a
second voyage. It was now proposed to take away the second
voyage altogether, and to transfer the duty to the revenue.—
( Hear, hear.) With regard to tobacco, he admitted the force
of the Noble Lord's argument, and with regard to himselt he
took blame for the indiscriminate application of a different
rule to col nial productions in this article. But he must
say in all good humour that the perceptions of Hon. Gentle-
men opposite with regard to the subject of these differential
duties were quickened in opposition. They all knew that the
principal act which marked the colonial administration of the
late Government was to raise up a protective interest in favour
of East India sugar.—( Hear.) But he admitted that their pre-
sent policy had raised up against them a new body of opponents.
That Government established a differential rate of duty in favour
of rice and bees-wax coming from the western coast of Afriea,
in 1836. In 1838 a new differential rate of duty was imposed
in favour of hides coming from the Colonies, and in the same
year an extensive protective duty was established in favour of
wood from Honduras. In 1840 a petition was presented to the
House, praying that the produce of the East Indies may be
placed on the same footing with the produce of the West In-
dies. The article of tobacco was a part of the produce, and he
was not sure that the Hon. Member for Montrose was not most
vehement in urging the Government to establish a different rate
of duty. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of
the Board of Trade, admitted there was an objection to adopting
the course prayed for by the petition, in consequence of the effect
it would have upon the revenue. The same remark was ap-
plicable to the article of East 'lndia tea, about which a ques-
tion was raised at the same time. The new rates proposed
were upwards of two hundred, and were subject to two limita-
tions. In the first place,the articles should be produced within the
United Kingdom—that was the first limitation. The other
was, that the article should be produced in the colonies, or im-
ported into some of the colonies. The Right Hon. Gentleman
then proceeded to discuss the justice of imposing differential
duties, and said that true principles of trade would
make their way in the world in the course of
time, and that England, without regarding what otl:er
countries might do, would adopt such principles as
she believed to be true and wise in her system of commercial
policy. But, at the same time, he thought that if the House
were indifferent to the importance of the colonial trade, great
uneasiness would be evinced throughout the country. He con-
sidered the effect of giving protection to infant colonies, had
been to place the supply of those colonies in the hands of this
country, and ti cheapen the price of their produce throughout the
whole world. Indigo, he considered, was an example of that
fact. He did not think, therefore, that a system of differential
duties was in every case commercially disadvantageous. It created
an intermediate class of prices between foreign and
home produce. It did not-increase the price of the article
to the consumer, but it augmented the supply,
and brought a new party into the field of competition--
( Hear, hear.) He thought that the Noble Lord was unfor-
tunate in his selection of salted provisions, which, he said,
would have a bad effect in America. Now he thought that as
the principal market for salted provisions was the navy, which
frequented foreign ports, it was better to take salted provisions
out of bond without payment of any duty.—( Hear, hear. )
Tne differential duty would or would not increase the con-
sumption. If it increased the consumption, the additional
duty which was paid was added to the revenue ; if it did'
not increase consumption, but displaced a portion of what was
formerly consumed of articles produced at home, it still in-
creased the revenue; but if it injured the revenue by displacing a
foreign commodity, it did so by making that commodity cheaper.
It was an abuse of words to call the new colonial rates of
duty the creation of differential duties. It was, in point of
fact, admitting the colonies to commercial equality with the
commercial producers. The Noble Lord had said that the
creation of duties on this side had a tendency to produce re-
strictions in the trasie of the colonies. Now, what was the
particular answer to that? Why, that great reductions were
taking place its the whole Western World. The Noble Lord
had said that it was most important that the House should be
careful, especially at the present moment, what example it
afforded to foreign countries with respect to colonial legislation.
He was sure that the proposition of the Government was one
which foreigners never could construe unfavourably. It was
approximating to the ease of commercial freedom • They were
doing now in the colonies what they did half a century ago in
Ireland. That country was separated from this by a commercial
tariff, but when it was desirable to unite her with England, the
country admitted her produce free. The case of Ireland,
therefore, was analogous to the colonies. He contended that
the effect of these new rates of duties would be to cheapen the
articles to which they related, and not to enhance their price,
and that they would be the means of fostering the commercial
marine, and increase the facility to commerce to the colonies.
Under the existing system the colonies had certain claims
in respect of justice upon the country. There were certain
disadvantages under which the coonies were placed: differen •
tial duties were imposed on the colonial markets. It had always
been the principle of the law—it was the principle introduced
by the late Government and the present one, to impose differen-
tial duties on all articles imported into the colonies, where they
came in competition with other articles. It was true that the
range of the differential duties was about to be reduced, but the
prineiple of them was retained. It was also the rule of this
country to prohibit the colonies from laying taxes on British
manufactures ; they laid duties on the colonies, but this countr y
would not allow them to lay duties upon it. Canasta, he believed,
was almost the only colony that was allowed to raise its income
to the extent of 5 per cent. on the manufactures of this coun-
try. On the whole, lie believed that the course adopted by the
Government would have the most beneficial effects on the trade
and commerce of the country.
Mr. C. WOOD considered that it would be unjust to the
Right Hon. Gentleman if he did not at once admit that great
improvement had been made in the tariff since it
had been first laid on the table of the House ; but
he was in hopes of seeing greater improvement in it still. It
was a matter of question whether those differential duties were
of any benefit to to the coloinal trade. It was the general
opinion of enliehtened persons who were acquainted with the
trade of the colonies, that they were of no benefit whatever.
The case of India had been referrial to ; but as the colon:es did
not contribute, as Ireland did, to the debt and the other burdens
of the country, they had not the same claim to have their trade,
like that of Ireland. on the footing of a coasting trade. When
the restrictions under which the colonial trade had before
laboured were about to be relaxed. he knew of no new claim
whico the colonies had to the additional advantage of differen-
tial duties. The proposed measure would raise up a new system
of vested interests, which would greatly impede the efforts
of this country to extend the principle of free trade
amongst our colonies and dependencies. It might be
very true that it would be desirable to place the colonies on the
same footing as Ireland. But if that were clone at ence what
would become of the revenue? Would it not he necessary to
make up for the deficiency by increased imposts upon the peo-
ple of this country ? He thought it would be ior the best to
leave these duties ai they were. . . . .

Sir C. LEMON so lima approved of the tariff, that it was
with reluctance he offered opposition to any part of it. But he
considered that the differential duties on tin would open the
door to frauds which no sagacity could guard against, and they
would have a m,,st injarious effect upon tt.e mining interests in
this country.—( Divide, divide. )
Lord STAN LEY would occupy the House a very short
time. His Noble Friend opposite objected to the differential
duties, on the ground that they would raise the price to the home
consumer, and at the same time lower the revenue. The Hon._
Baronet opposite (Sir C. Lemon) objected to them on the con-
trary ground, that they would make tin cheap, and thereby in-
jure his constituents in Cornwall.—( Hear.) Now he differed
from his Noble Friend, and was convinced that whilst the effect
would be to lower the price to thehotne consumer, the revenue
would he benefited. He should say, with reference to the
speech of the Noble Lord, that it went altogether to the an-
nihilation of that system upon which we had hitherto car-
ried on our commercial intercourse with the widely-spread
colonies of the British empire. Ile entered his protest against
the doctrine of the Noble Lord, by
which he would put our
trade with the colonies of Great Britain in no more advantageous
position than with colonies which were bound to us by no tics
of nationality.—( Hear, hear.) Against the justice, against
the policy of such a system, he altogether protested. Iltstrie.
tions were imposed by
this
country upon the colonies; they
were prevented purchasing in the cheapest market ; and while
those rescrietions were imposed upon their trade, we could not
in justice place them in the. same position with regard
to us as foreign countries. He did not say that the colonies should
be treated in all respects as an integral part of the empire,
although he did not see any objections which foreign farmers'
could make to our taking such a course; but they might at
least claim a preference over nations with whom our trade
might at any time be interrupted by the cessation of peaceful
relations, or by other causes. On the grounds of policy it
was important to encourage that colonial trade which was
subject to no caprice, subject to no hostility, subject to
none of the embarrassments arising out of the inevitable
instability of our relations with countries over which we had
nu control, and with whose condition we could never be per-
fectly acquainted. Let them look to the mere amount of our
exports to the British North American colonies, and they
could not fail to become sensible of the importance of that
branch of our trade. The total amount of our exports to the
British North American colonies was, in 1837, 3,844,000/. ; in
1838, it was 3,616,0001., making an average amount for these two
years of 3,700,000/. The average amount of the imports into
these colonies from foreign countries was, during three years, not
more than 700,000/. That was the total amount of the imports
which did not come directly from the mother country.—( Hear,
hear.) The total amount of the imports of British North Ame-
rica, of the West Indies, and of Australia, taken together, was in
the year 1837, no less than 10,261,0001. ; in 1838 it was
10,581,0001. ; and of this amount, in neither year, were there
2,000,000/. of these imports which did nut come directly from
Great Britain, or from British colonies, and which were not •

the produce of British industry and British manufactures.—
( Hear, hear.) Our returns f, om the same colonies amounted,
in 1837, to 11,032,000/.. an,l ,n 1,38 t i 1-?054 OWL. ,hile
i hi, trade was carried on, not ei:( u.tously, hte, directly, an!
with mutual advantage to bot't parties. Let them pgriare
their trad.. with their North Vneri an coloni .s, with their
trade with their best foreign customers, the United
States. He found, that in one year, tho amount
of our exports to Canada, which contained a population of
only 1,340,000 souls, was 2,629,0001., which gave an amount
of 395. 2d. per head; while our exports to the United States,
which contained a population of 17,000,000 souls, amounted
to 7,235,0001., which gave an amount of only Ss. sd. per head.
Under these circumstances, he called upon them not to deprive
either Great Britain or the colonies of the advantage of the re-
lations now subsisting between them. He believed that by
pursuing the policy of the Noble Lord they w,uld diminish
the national strength, and sink this country into a second-rate
power.

- Mr. BARING said, notwithstanding the able declamation of
the Noble Lord, the House could not have the slightest notion
of the question before them.—( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend
protiosed to take the sense of the House, as to whether it was
advisable to create new differential duties; his resolution did not
touch any hf those at present existing; he asked no opinion upon
them, all he asked was, whether they would abandon
the old course they had hitherto pursued, and introduce new
differential duties that did not now exist. The answer of the
Noble Lord was a panegyric on the existing system, and yet
he invoked them, in the name of all that was valuable, not to
adhere to that old system, but to adopt a system of differential
duties, now introduced for the first time. The speech of the
Noble Lord was an admirable one against the whole tariff of the
she Right Hen. Gentleman.—(Cneers. ) If ihe Noble Lord
were not now a free trader, but remained what he was last
Sear, his speech would de ve been one of the most powerful
against any change in the existing system. Every argument
he had used would tell with effect against the proposals of the
Right. Hon. Gentleman. What were the differential duties
that bound them to the colonies? They were 131 in number,
and the Noble Lord invoked them, on eve..y commercial and
political ground, not to touch them ; yet, of those 131 duties,
under the new tariff, 98 were reduced, 4 were abolished, and
8 were increased, 4 from trifling, ands from temporary causes;
twenty one only were left untouched. The cases of rum,
sugar, and coffee, had been taken and stated against the late
Government; but it was an extraordinary assertion to say
that because they equalised the duties on them they were of
a different opinion then than they held now. With respect to
the two articles of rough rice and bees-wax, imported from the
Coast of Africa, the differential duty was allowed by the late
Government, on the belief that if they could raise a trade with
that continent they would do more to abolish slavery than by any
other means. With regard to timber, he would ask any one who
knew anything at all of the trade in that article, what it was which
regulated the price? The admission made by all must be, that
the price of colonial timber was regulated by the quantity that
came over for consumption. The colonists themselves recog-
nised that principle. So also in the case of spices ; the price
was regulated by the price which the surplus bore in foreign
markets. He found upon apples, pears, and medlars a diffe-
rential duty. It was necessary to bind the colonies in an indis-
soluble bond, by giving protection to those fruits ; and what
was remarkable, if they dries the apple, if they dried the pear,
if they dried the medlar, the principle ceased to be applied.
There was a protecting duty upon meat—there was stone upon
liquids. He was at a loss to understand upon what principle
these differential duties were imposed ; dried apples were not
protected, cider was net protected, but apples were. He
really was at a loss to know upon what practical principle the
imposition of these differential duties were base I.—(Cheers. )
Sir R. PEEL had hoped, until he had heard the speech of
the Right Hen. Gentleman, that the object of the Noble Lord
had been to save discussion in detail on the various articles of
the tariff, and to take the discussion on the general principles
of the tariff, so far as the case of differential duties was con-
cerned ; but he was afraid, from the speech of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, that they would have to go into details when the
various articles came under the consideration of the Committee,
and under those circumstances he could not but wonder that
the Right Hon. Gentleman had not restrained his indignation
at the article of medlars on the present occaasion.—(Cheers
and laughter.) The Noble Lord must have given notice of
his motion out of regard to the Right Hon. Gentleman, be-
cause if the Noble Lord had not brought forward this motion,
the discussion must have been taken in Committee on the first
article of the tariff; the discussion must have been taken on
the colonial asses which had so excited the indignation of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the other evening =( Cheers and
laughter)—and had it not been for the motion of the Noble
Lord, that would have been the pons asinorum of the Right
Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Right Hon.
Gestleraan had given to the House an exposition of the port).
sition of the Noble Lord. He (Sir R. Feel) besought the
House to hear his (Sir R. Peel's) version of the principle con-
tained in the Noble Lord's motion, That principle was nei-
ther more nor less than this, that you should not in any
case impose a different rate of duty upon the same articles when
imported from foreign countries or from British possessions.
The Noble Lord had laid down the abstract proposition that
you should not in any case raise the duty on articles imported
from foreign countries higher than the duty imposed on similar
articles imported from British Colonies; the Noble Lord con-
tended that in every case, and under all circumstances, the
colonies should be treated as foreign countries in all our com-
mercial relations. It had,•, however, been said by his
Right Hon. Friend that Hon. Gentlemen opposite had not
acted upon that principle when in office, and the Right Hon.
Gentleman had admitted that there had been the slightest pos-
sible exception to the adoption of that course of policy with
regard to bees-wax and rough rice, the produce of Africa,
and the reason why differential duties had been established
upon those articles was, according to the Right Honourable
Gentleman, because it was thought it would confer
a benefit upon the natives of Africa, by encouraging
the trade, and inducing them to devote their attention
to the pursuits of peaceful industry. But what became of the
argument of the Noble Lord, that by establishing differential
duties they were doing an injury to the colonies themselves ?
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said, that by establishing dif-
ferential duties they were only disturbing the application of
capital, and encouraging that which must prove a source of
great future injury. If that argument were correct, where was
the humanity of encouraging the growth of rough rice in
Africa?—(Cheers.) That was the great principle which the
Noble Lord had laid down, and upon that principle they were
called on to. night to decide. If the principle of the Noble
Lord were correct, there was an end at once of colonial con-
nections.—( Hear, hear.) The principle struck at the root of
that connection. Was it right—was it just—to say to the co-
lonies, you shall import articles of British manufac-
ture on a more favoured footing than you did to
the foreigner ? They were at this moment passing an
Act to force the colonies to give the British manu-
facturers a preference, and would it, he would ask, be just to
say to the colonies, we will force you to give more favourable
terms to the manufacturers of Great Britain than the manti-
fact urers of foreign countries, but dr-at Britain will give your
produce no preference whatever?—( Hear, hear.) That was
the principle for which the Noble Lord contended.—( Signs of
dissent from Lord Howick.) Would the Noble Lord then do
away with the preference given to British manufactures in the
colonies.--( Hear, hear, from Lord Howick.) If he would, he
( Sir R. P.) would ask why maintain the colonies at all ?
( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The colonies were, ac-
cording to the Noble Lord, to have an unlimited right of
buying in the cheapest market. They were to
have a right of taking goods from the foreigner on
more fevoured terms if they thought fit than goods
from this country, and this country was to show no favour to
colonial produce. If, for the purposes of revenue, they imposed
a duty of 30 per cent. on articles the produce of Russia or
France, according to the Noble Lord's principle they were to
impose the same rate of duty upon articles the pro.
duce cf our own colonies.—( Hear, bear, from Lord Howick.)
Be it so ; but then he would ask why go to the expense of
keeping the colonies ?—( Hear.) The Noble Lord had said,
look at our trade with the United States. See how it had in-
creased since they had become independent; but then -he (Sir
Robert Peel) would ask why retain the colonies ?
( Hear, hear.) If we were to derive no advantage in
respect to commercial intercourse, if we were to derive
no advantage for our shipping and navigation, if we were to
have no exclusive privileges in the colonies, what possible rea-
son could there be for maintaining and supporting them, and
why should we be at the at the expense of garrisons in Canada
of 15,000 men? According to the Noble Lord's principle, co-
lonies should govern themselves, and ought at once to declare
their independence. The Noble Lord said that air. Huskisson
had advocated a similar principle ; but Me. Huskisson had pro-
posed in the case of Canada to admit Canadian corn into this
country at a fixed duty of 55. If the Noble Lord's resolution
had passtd, it would have been impossible for Mr. Huskisson
to have made that proposition. Again, with regard to Mauri-
tius sugar; who had lowered the duty on Mauritius sugar 10
per cent. ? —Mr. Huskisson. He had done so in 1826 or 1827.
If the Noble Lord's principle had been affirmed by the House,
it would have been impossible for Mr. Huskisson to have
equalised the duty on Mauritius and West India sugar.. But
what said Mr. Huskisson with respect to the East Indies, when
a complaint had been made that the United States had refused
to our manufactures the same privileges which they had granted
to the manufactures of other countries? Why, Mr. Huskisson
had raid, when speaking of the measures to which this country
might resort, if the United States persisted in the adoption of
that course of policy, that we could soon be abundantly sup.
plied with tob icco from the East Indies, if'we afforded encou-
ragement for the cu'tivation of it. How was that to be done,
except by lowering the duty ? With regard to the rice of India,
Mr. Huskisson had said that that would soon usurp the place
which the rice imported from Carolina then held. With re-
ference to cotton, it was only necessary to give the cultivation
the same encouragement and protection as the indigo trade
obtained, to ensure the cultivation with equal success, nil u
good and rateable an ar idle. The result would soon be that
the cotton would rival that of the western world, as the indigo
of India had excelled that of all other places, owing to
the judicious encouragement of trade—the proection of
the East India indigo trade by means of reduced duty.
This was to have the effect of encouraging the culti-
vation of that article, and diminish its price to the consumer
by transferring the trarle,to the colonies. This was what was
Awed by Mr. fluskismm, and yet the Noble, Lord contended
that Mr. Huskisson was the patron of this principle, that colo-
nial articles should in all cases be subject to the same duty as
foreign article . He ( Sir H. Peel) thought this was entirely
inconsistent with the fact. Let them take the case of India.
They sent their cotton manufactures to India. They insisted
on India receiving their goads. It India were to a tempt to
get revenue by subjecting our articles of manufacture to a duty,
they should take care effectually to prevent it. The Noble
Lord ought to be prepared to subvert altogether the colonial
interest. It was quite clear that if they insisted an the colonists
being subject to a special duty for the purpose of increasing the
maritime strength of this country—for the purpose of increasing
the consumption of ourananufaetures in the colonies, they insisted
upon their manufactures being introduced at lower rates than
the manufactures of other countries, he (Sir R. Peel) put it to
any rational man in that House, actuated by equitable princi-
ples, whether it would be just, concurrently with the main-
tenance of the dignity of the country, to contend that the (lobo-
Hies should have no advantage. It appeared to him to be alto-
gether inconsistent and unjust. They told the colonies that
they would maintain their connection with them. They had
pledged themselves to the Canadas to maintain that connection.
He should deeply regret if the House of Commons was pre-
pared for one or other of these things. Either to tell the
Canadas that there would be no distinction for British manu-
factures, that they were at liberty to introduce foreign goods,
the manufactures of other countries, upon terms
equally advantageous with British goods ; or take that,
other still more impolitic course, to say to them
we insist upon introducing British goods, we insist cm de-
priving you of the discretion of carrying on an inter-course with
foreign countries which exported manufactures, They would turn
round and tell them, if your goods are to be introduced in this
country, they must be introduce;( on the same footing as the fo-
reigner. It appeared to him (Sir R. Peel) that such a course
would not enable them to maintain the connection between this
country and the colonies. He could not answer 'to the ju.tice
of 600 or 700 articles. It was impossible to make every discri.
ininating duty just. If they took one article upon which a duty
of 6d. was imposed, and took anoth upon wh ei 9d. was im-
posed, and required an explanation of the difference, he said at
once that it was impossible to give that explanation. They must
judge of it as a whole. They must consider the complicated re-
lations of the country, the immense extent of capital employed
in trade, the immense extent of colonial empire, and the
Clanger of rashly shaking the foundation of the connexion of
that empire; and they must decide, as he thought they had un-
dertaken to decide, upon the whole, whether, its proposine
these financial and commercial measures, looking to the pecu-
liar results which were admitted, they had d die all that a wise
and prudent Government could do for the purpose of relieving

the country. If that were the conclusion to which they Would
come, if they believed that some vigorous effort was necessary
for the pu-rse of relievinti the fillanees of th eirintry, and, for,
e
pori,c, of relit clog the s of in .ustry. he appea'a
to thei j.t tiise to docide upoi-t rne,n, 171.3 a whole, ra'he.r,
than sei nt nu e part, in respect of hick'
would be difficult to give a satisfactory and conclusive proof of
its propriety. He hoped that Hun. Uentleinen opposite,
had stated that this measure, as a whole, was excellent, were
still of that opinion, and that the House would decide upon
the general principle included in the resolutiou of the Noble
Lord. (Lord Howick made some observation across the
table, which was inaudible in the gallery. ) This principle
would be most injurious to the colonies, not speaking Per:
sonally, but of the permanent interest of the whole people. Ihl
princip,le of the Noble Lord was not to introduce colonial
articles on a more favourable footing than foreign. The Noble
Lord wished to protect the interests' which had sprung all
under the present system, but he wished to place the colonies
on the same tooting as foreign nations. Whoa they sanctioned
that principle, they ought to sanction the principle that eaeh
.
colony should declare its own independence and provide for itse!l
Mr. VILLIERS would support the motion of the Nob°
Lord, though he thought it was too limited. It did not go far
enough towards the goal of free trade.
Lord J. RUSSELL, amidst cries of " Divide," said that
he only wished to make a few observations on what had fallen
l
from the Noble Lied, the Secretary for the Colonies, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, who, finding, he auPP's
thai, the motion of nis Noble Friend was in itself reasonable,
had applied all their arguments to other propositions—to solne
proposition which was not before the House—some theory
which they thought they could combat, but which had nothing
t do with the proposition which the House was called ors
consider. The Right Hon. Baronet proposed new different'
al
duties on 200 articles, with regard to which his Noble Fria"'
said that in themselves they were obviously a loss to the
venue, while they conferred no gain on the consumer.—Olga''
hear.) Why then, asked his Noble Friend, should those
be imposed ? And what was the answer ? The answer was, it vial
not right to treat the colonies as foreign countries. But that any
swer had no relatiiin whatever to the question before the 1101.14'd
—( Hear.) That was a question of abstract theory, and ha
nothing to do with the matter now under consideration'''.
( Hear.) One would have thought that the Right Hon. Gen'
tleman, having devoted the greater part of the recess to the e°,11,."
sideration of this subject, would have been prepared to state'w°
reasons for introducing each ot those articles ; but having
ecre-
fused to state his reasons for each arti he at least expect
to hear some reasons for their introduction generally ; but
had not heard a single reason from the Noble Lord, or any), iof
the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the introduction
those new articles.—( Hear.) He had heard much of C 0:
lonial dependency, and much of the utility of keeping u!
the intercourse between this country and the colontett;
hut that was totally beside the question.—( Hear, hear,)
could agree to a statement ot that kind, and yet vote for the
i
proposition of his Noble Friend, as he should do ; the wh01e,.°,4
the principles laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman
night were totally opposed to those he propounded the oth:i
evening, when he said that great advantage would be dell 4
by the people of this country if the duties were lowered, a.. 11
if they were to have articles of consumption at a cheaper To";
—( Hear, hear.) He hoped when they name to the tariff tbe'
would not be satisfied with dealing' on liberal principles WI
the smaller articles, but would act in the same mariner witia
regard to those great articles of consumption, which Wt.
confer real and substantial benefit on the people of this count'''.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Lord How ick's motion ... 108
Against it
Majority against the motion ...... --173
On our re-admission to the gallery we found the Houle: '-
Committee, and
Mr. S. O'BRIEN on his legs, objectingeto the House Pr:
ceeding further that night. He should move that the GM"'
man repo. t progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Sir R. PEEL had no objection to the course proposed, Pr':
vided the House would allow him to proceed with the tariff e'"
the Monday after the recess, and on the Wednesday, Thorr
day, and Friday in that week.—( Hear, hear.)
This suggestion being agreed to, the Right Hon. Bar°ll
stated it was his intention to proceed with the Army and Or
nance estimates on Friday next.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported peogrelf'
and asked leave to sit again on Monday week.
'f he other Orders of the day were then disposed of, and tile
House adjourned at a Quarter to One o'Clock.

LOAN BILL.
The following is a copy of the Loan Bill, as pas°
by the Congress of the United States :
" A Bill for the extension of the Loan of 1841, and

an addition of 5,000,000 dollars thereto. 4
"Be it enacted, &c., That the time limited by the
first section of the Act of Congress, entitled P-ef
authorising a loan not exceeding the sum,
12,000,000 dollars,' approved July 21, 1841, "'
obtaining said loan, shall be, and the same is, hereby
extended for one year, from the passage of this Aet'
" See. 2. And be it further enacted, that so mush
of the said loan as may be obtained after the pasself
of this Act shall be made reimbursable, as shall,"-
agreed upon and determined at the time of i,€stil
said stock, either, at the will of the Secretary of t. $
Treasury, after six months' notice, or at any time 11P
exceeding 20 years from the Ist day of January Det
" Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, that the eerfa
ficates hereafter to be issued for said loan may,
required, be in such form as shall be prescribed by ttio'r
Secretary of the Treasury, so that the stock nusf
transferable by delivery of the certificate, insteatte
being assignable on the books of the Treasury.
" Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, that the PO.
viso to the second section of the said Act is hereby
repealed; and the Secretary of the Treasury is
i. heruoeba+
1
authorised to cause the stock hereafter to be
iss e ,enti
to be disposed of at the highest price Ahiel:
obtain for the same, on its being advertised hall
able time for proposals ; but no stock whatever s of,
be sold below par, except upon, and iii.pursnence
a specific advertiseMent, and by virtue thereof.
" Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, th;it the Inone3l:
arising from duties on goods, wares, and inerchandOt
which may be imported into the United States, or of
much thereof as shall be equal to the payment, fro!,
time to time, of the interest, and to the ultimate
demption of the principal of the stock hereafter to twa.
issued under and by virtue of this Act and the sal
Act of July 21, 1841, hereby amended, and so nul_.„,
thereof as may be necessary to pay the interest
.01
said stock, and redeem the same when due,
appropriated to that object, to be first applied by "L.
Secretary of the Treasury to such payments and I*--
demption.
he
" Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, that it shall
to
the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to report
Congress, at the commencement of the session, 110
amount of' money borrowed under this Act and to
Act hereby amended, and of whom and upon Who,
terms it shall have been obtained, with an abstract
is heren,i,
brief statement of all the proposals submitted for th
same, distinguishing between those accepted and th 7(
rejected; and a detailed statement of the expense •
making such loans. , 4.10
" Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, that ahi.or.
provisions of the said Act, not hereby modifiei"
changed, shall be and remain in force, and apailf
this Act.
" Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, that the Plsh
ie:
dent of the United States is hereby authorised]
borrow an additional sum, not exceeding the sum bt
5,000,000 dollars, if, in his opinion, the exigenciesco;,
the Government may require the same ; which scl..j;,
tional loan shall be made within the time and aceT,
ing to the provisions of said Act, as modified by tiwc;,.,
" Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, that all Tre-ot
sury notes heretofore issued under the Act entiti..o
An Act to authorise the issuing of Treasury norfi7i
approved the 12th day of October, 1837, and the
subsequent thereto, and now outstanding and neit;4l'
deemed, or which may hereafter be issued under 0,,
by virtue of the same, shall, if due and unpaid befoto'
the sth day of March, 1842, bear interest at the
of 6 per cent. per annum, from that day ; and
they may become due hereafter, or may-have bee°;i,
due since the said sth day of March, 1842, 51161;
bear interest from the day of their becoming- duep':
the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, until they
be respectively redeemed. Provided, that such
terest cease at the expiration of 60 days' notle';',
to be givEn at any time by the Secretary of the Treii,.;.i
sury, in one or more of the principal papers po:,
lished at the seat of Government, of a readiness to
,deem the same. And the said interest shall be plt
able semi-annually at the Treasury of the Unilfi
States, on the first days of January and July in ere',r.
year."
MONEY MARKET and CITY NE
SUN.—A degree of flatness has pervaded the English Al 0.
and the prices of Consols for 111nnev are not quite s ) good sel.
lett off yesterday, being 923 g 92%, and 921- 94% for the 41'
count. Bank Stock, 1674 164 ; India Stock, 219,
Exchequer Bills, 39 41 prem.
Clr
The prices of Foreign Securities were—Belgian 1011 O I r
Dutch Two-arid-a-Half per Cents., 521/2 533 • the }lye. r
Cents., 1004 1014; Danish, 804 814; and Brazilian, 67 6.13.0 e,
A considerable busine-s was transacted in Mexica%o
quotation for which has been raised to 37,4,374 ; but as all ,t"eir -
have been for time, they must be looked upon as merely 5110.0„.:.
lative. There is just as much reason for the rise now am' :400,)
was for the late decline, that is to say, none which can bete
trd
legitimate, but only attributable to gambling operat:ons,
result of which should be a sufficient warning to avoid 11,e/130:-.
London and Birmingham Railway Shares were 06 /0/4
Birmingham and Gloucester, 53 55; Great Westerns . ath
934 ; the Half Shares, 64 64/ ; South Western, 6:34Z;fel
Gosport, 634 644 ; North Midland. 65 67 ; the Neff
324 South Eastern and Dover, 294 30 ; the Scrip , 7z-10f.
Eastern Counties, 9A 9a ; Blackwall, 113 llg ; 'the
Shares, 9,t 94 ; Brighton, 363 36d per Share.
The Bonds of the insolvent States w ere thus, quot 5/4;.
Colombian, 26 26* ; Portuguese Five per Cen'a, 33 0
the Three per Cents., 224 23; Spanish Five pur Cents,
22f, and the Three per Cents. 224 23. ;Ater'
The Foreign'Exchanges are all firm, and a shade b•...ber
The bills negotiated on Hamburgh were large both in nom
and amount. The quotations were—Haraburgh, 10'44),
12 134 ; Antwerp, 12 44 12.44 ; Rotterdam, 12 44 itiosr
Amsterdam, 12 44 12 ; Frankfort, 1513 1514 ; Vie
9 524 9 53, and Paris, 25f. 80c. to 25f. 824 c.
; bOi
There were no foreign arrivals or particular feature .P.,ure
nen beyond being the dullest day which has been ex pal"
for some time. _
• ter*''
The Earl of Auckland, accompanied by 'nis 91° iKi”;
the Hon. Slit es Eden, and his nephew and Aid-
Hon. Capt. W. Godolphin Osborne, is expecte, to arr.,'
town the first week in the ensuing month, from.the late 77„tlirpf.',
his Government at Calcutta. His Lordship went.oo4"-'
spring of 1835. "
!Fo.,Ro..n,Esthq,e.;oloosfihf,ijinnast.c,raatwCfohradrltono,:ge:
Leicester, y3(l)uAnßgenstisßo Peter fjslr";"
Caflin, daughter of +~
Esq., of Woolwich-con.my in. 10 i
On the 12th inst., at St. John's, Oxfc.rd.squarc'
Flom age Esq., of Bryanston.street, Porttnati-s4u—p,Y
Elizabeth Anne, youngest daughter oißobert Warreu,:
formerly Captain in the 4th Dragoon Guards.
'.ortb n : Printed .ant Published RD I Y(.151 ea
• 12, Stran.:. ':'he So, Office, No 112, ‘,5- "fa
the County of Middlesex, Saturday, May 14, 54